Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.014397118 = product of:
  0.043191355 = sum of:
    0.043191355 = product of:
      0.08638271 = sum of:
        0.08638271 = weight(_text_:22 in 7192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08638271 = score(doc=7192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2009 11:44:11

0.014397118 = product of:
  0.043191355 = sum of:
    0.043191355 = product of:
      0.08638271 = sum of:
        0.08638271 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08638271 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:18:36

0.012340388 = product of:
  0.037021164 = sum of:
    0.037021164 = product of:
      0.07404233 = sum of:
        0.07404233 = weight(_text_:22 in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07404233 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 7297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

26. 4.2015 19:27:22

0.010283656 = product of:
  0.03085097 = sum of:
    0.03085097 = product of:
      0.06170194 = sum of:
        0.06170194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06170194 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

0.008677262 = product of:
  0.026031785 = sum of:
    0.026031785 = weight(_text_:to in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026031785 = score(doc=5678,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.3144084 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines the complex relationship between information investment and socio-economic development with special reference to the relevance and appropriateness of the information services offered to developinf countries. Emphasises the importance of cultural relativism in the varying potential of information to influence social development. Proposes a civic networking model which contributes to the empowerment of the people by ensuring that: citizens are provided with free or subsidized access to community (and other) information resources; the local community has a high level of equity/ownership in the design and maintenance of the information system/service; and content is locally negotiated and validated

0.007839975 = product of:
  0.023519924 = sum of:
    0.023519924 = weight(_text_:to in 4853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023519924 = score(doc=4853,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28407046 = fieldWeight in 4853, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4853)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The author describes an exploratory analysis of the influence of place and proximity on collaboration. Bibliometric data and biographical information are combined to reveal the extent to which co-authorship relationships are a function of physical collocation.

0.0077611795 = product of:
  0.023283537 = sum of:
    0.023283537 = weight(_text_:to in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023283537 = score(doc=2461,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28121543 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scholars in major US research universities were surveyed to explore the normative bases of acknowledgement behaviour. Measures of agreement and divergence were established in respect of five issue sets pertaining to acknowledgement practice: expectations, etiquette, ethics, equity and evaluation. The results confirm the substantive role played by acknowledgements in the primary communication process. Although few formal rules exist, it is clear that many scholars subscribe to the idea of a governing etiquette. The findings also suggest that acknowledgement data could be mined to lay bare the rules of engagement that define the dynamics of collaboration and interdependence among scholars

0.0077611795 = product of:
  0.023283537 = sum of:
    0.023283537 = weight(_text_:to in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023283537 = score(doc=1377,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28121543 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors describe a large-scale, longitudinal citation analysis of intellectual trading between information studies and cognate disciplines. The results of their investigation reveal the extent to which information studies draws on and, in turn, contributes to the ideational substrates of other academic domains. Their data show that the field has become a more successful exporter of ideas as well as less introverted than was previously the case. In the last decade, information studies has begun to contribute significantly to the literatures of such disciplines as computer science and engineering on the one hand and business and management on the other, while also drawing more heavily on those same literatures.

0.0076815756 = product of:
  0.023044726 = sum of:
    0.023044726 = weight(_text_:to in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023044726 = score(doc=196,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2783311 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

0.0076815756 = product of:
  0.023044726 = sum of:
    0.023044726 = weight(_text_:to in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023044726 = score(doc=2361,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2783311 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors use a novel method - the Author Affiliation Index (AAI) - to determine whether faculty at the top-10 North American library and information science (LIS) programs have a disproportionate presence in the premier journals of the field. The study finds that LIS may be both too small and too interdisciplinary a domain for the AAI to provide reliable results.

0.0074376534 = product of:
  0.02231296 = sum of:
    0.02231296 = weight(_text_:to in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02231296 = score(doc=1825,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.26949292 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

0.006721379 = product of:
  0.020164136 = sum of:
    0.020164136 = weight(_text_:to in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020164136 = score(doc=7827,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24353972 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reviews the scale, range and consistency of acknowledgement behaviour, in citations, for a number of academic disciplines. The qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests a pervasive and consistent practice in which acknowledgements define a variety of social, cognitive and instrumental relationships between scholars and within and across disciplines. As such they may be used alongside other bibliometric indicators, such as citations, to map networks of influence. Considers the case for using acknowledgements data in the assessment of academic performance and proposes an online acknowledgement index to facilitate this process, perhaps as a logical extension of ISI's citation indexing products

0.006721379 = product of:
  0.020164136 = sum of:
    0.020164136 = weight(_text_:to in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020164136 = score(doc=6031,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24353972 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Multiple authorship is a topic of growing concern in a number of scientific domains. When, as is increasingly common, scholarly articles and clinical reports have scores or even hundreds of authors-what Cronin (in press) has termed "hyperauthorship" -the precise nature of each individual's contribution is often masked. A notation that describes collaborators' contributions and allows those contributions to be tracked in, and across, texts (and over time) offers a solution. Such a notation should be useful, easy to use, and acceptable to communities of scientists. Drawing on earlier work, we present a proposal for an XML-like "contribution" mark-up, and discuss the potential benefits and possible drawbacks

0.006721379 = product of:
  0.020164136 = sum of:
    0.020164136 = weight(_text_:to in 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020164136 = score(doc=4991,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24353972 = fieldWeight in 4991, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4991)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We conducted a fine-grained prosopography of six distinguished information scientists to explore commonalities and differences in their approaches to scholarly production at different stages of their careers. Specifically, we gathered data on authors' genre preferences, rates and modes of scholarly production, and coauthorship patterns. We also explored the role played by gender and place in determining mentoring and collaboration practices across time. Our biobibliometric profiles of the sextet reveal the different shapes a scholar's career can take. We consider the implications of our findings for new entrants into the academic marketplace.

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=525,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 525, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=525)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications of research on bias in peer review. This review provides a brief description of the function, history, and scope of peer review; articulates and critiques the conception of bias unifying research on bias in peer review; characterizes and examines the empirical, methodological, and normative claims of bias in peer review research; and assesses possible alternatives to the status quo. We close by identifying ways to expand conceptions and studies of bias to contend with the complexity of social interactions among actors involved directly and indirectly in peer review.

0.00627198 = product of:
  0.018815938 = sum of:
    0.018815938 = weight(_text_:to in 529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018815938 = score(doc=529,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22725637 = fieldWeight in 529, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=529)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Internet has the potential to become a major strategic information tool for commercial enterprises. many companies, large and small, are already using the Internet to gain an edge in an increasingly competitive business environment, both domestically and internationally. It may well be that the Internet is the next major phase in the evolution of the competitive intelligence function in advanced organizations, especially as commercialization of the network intensifies. Describes an exploratory study of business use of the Internet for competitive intelligence purposes

0.00627198 = product of:
  0.018815938 = sum of:
    0.018815938 = weight(_text_:to in 2327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018815938 = score(doc=2327,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22725637 = fieldWeight in 2327, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2327)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Where, how, and why are scholars invoked on the WWW? An inductively derived typology was used to captue genres of invocation. Comparative data were gathered using five commercial search engines. It is argued that the Web fosters mow modalities of scholarly communication. Different categories of invocation are identified and analyzed in terms of their potential to inform sociometric and bibliometric analyses of academic interaction

0.00627198 = product of:
  0.018815938 = sum of:
    0.018815938 = weight(_text_:to in 5127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018815938 = score(doc=5127,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22725637 = fieldWeight in 5127, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5127)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'

0.00627198 = product of:
  0.018815938 = sum of:
    0.018815938 = weight(_text_:to in 5105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018815938 = score(doc=5105,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22725637 = fieldWeight in 5105, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5105)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Formal and informal modes of collaboration in life sciences research were explored paratextually. The bylines and acknowledgments of more than 1,000 research articles in the journal Cell were analyzed to reveal the strength of collegiate ties and the importance of material and ideational trading between both individuals and labs. Intense coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration were shown to be defining features of contemporary research in the life sciences.

0.005761182 = product of:
  0.017283546 = sum of:
    0.017283546 = weight(_text_:to in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017283546 = score(doc=539,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20874833 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Little research has been reported on how the Internet is being used to source corporate competitive intelligence. An exploratory study was conducted to explore current practice and future potential. A request for participants was posted to business-oriented listservs and Usenet newsgroups. Respondents were sent an open-ended survey which addressed three topics: a) the Internet as a source of competitive edge; b) ways in which the Internet could make their firm mor competitive, and c) security and other usage-related issues from the corporate perspective. Findings suggest that the Internet is being used as a tool for monitoring the external environment, locating distributed experts, engaging in informal know-how trading, and conducting market research. Respondents foresee greater use of the Internet in the context of the competitive intelligence function, and generally have few reservations about using the Internet