-
Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004)
0.05
0.046064835 = product of:
0.06909725 = sum of:
0.046260733 = weight(_text_:reference in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046260733 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.050593734 = queryNorm
0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
0.022836514 = product of:
0.045673028 = sum of:
0.045673028 = weight(_text_:database in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045673028 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
0.050593734 = queryNorm
0.2233156 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.03
0.03381206 = product of:
0.05071809 = sum of:
0.037008587 = weight(_text_:reference in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037008587 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.050593734 = queryNorm
0.17979822 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.013709505 = product of:
0.02741901 = sum of:
0.02741901 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02741901 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050593734 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
-
Zhang, L.; Rousseau, R.; Glänzel, W.: Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals : taking similarity between subject fields into account (2016)
0.02
0.015420245 = product of:
0.046260733 = sum of:
0.046260733 = weight(_text_:reference in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046260733 = score(doc=2902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.050593734 = queryNorm
0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The objective of this article is to further the study of journal interdisciplinarity, or, more generally, knowledge integration at the level of individual articles. Interdisciplinarity is operationalized by the diversity of subject fields assigned to cited items in the article's reference list. Subject fields and subfields were obtained from the Leuven-Budapest (ECOOM) subject-classification scheme, while disciplinary diversity was measured taking variety, balance, and disparity into account. As diversity measure we use a Hill-type true diversity in the sense of Jost and Leinster-Cobbold. The analysis is conducted in 3 steps. In the first part, the properties of this measure are discussed, and, on the basis of these properties it is shown that the measure has the potential to serve as an indicator of interdisciplinarity. In the second part the applicability of this indicator is shown using selected journals from several research fields ranging from mathematics to social sciences. Finally, the often-heard argument, namely, that interdisciplinary research exhibits larger visibility and impact, is studied on the basis of these selected journals. Yet, as only 7 journals, representing a total of 15,757 articles, are studied, albeit chosen to cover a large range of interdisciplinarity, further research is still needed.
-
Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012)
0.01
0.011424588 = product of:
0.034273762 = sum of:
0.034273762 = product of:
0.068547525 = sum of:
0.068547525 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.068547525 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050593734 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 14. 2.2012 12:53:22
-
Jin, B.; Li, L.; Rousseau, R.: Long-term influences of interventions in the normal development of science : China and the cultural revolution (2004)
0.01
0.009134606 = product of:
0.027403818 = sum of:
0.027403818 = product of:
0.054807637 = sum of:
0.054807637 = weight(_text_:database in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054807637 = score(doc=2232,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
0.050593734 = queryNorm
0.26797873 = fieldWeight in 2232, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2232)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Intellectual and technological talents and skills are the driving force for scientific and industrial development, especially in our times characterized by a knowledgebased economy. Major events in society and related political decisions, however, can have a long-term effect an a country's scientific weIl-being. Although the Cultural Revolution took place from 1966 to 1976, its aftermath can still be felt. This is shown by this study of the production and productivity of Chinese scientists as a function of their age. Based an the 1995-2000 data from the Chinese Science Citation database (CSCD), this article investigates the year-by-year age distribution of scientific and technological personnel publishing in China. It is shown that the "Talent Fault" originating during the Cultural Revolution still exists, and that a new gap resulting from recent brain drain might be developing. The purpose of this work is to provide necessary information about the current situation and especially the existing problems of the S&T workforce in China.
-
Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: Yield sequences as journal attractivity indicators : "payback times" for Science and Nature (2008)
0.01
0.009134606 = product of:
0.027403818 = sum of:
0.027403818 = product of:
0.054807637 = sum of:
0.054807637 = weight(_text_:database in 1737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054807637 = score(doc=1737,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
0.050593734 = queryNorm
0.26797873 = fieldWeight in 1737, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1737)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The yield period of a journal is defined as the time needed to accumulate the same number of citations as the number of references included during the period of study. Yield sequences are proposed as journal attractivity indicators describing dynamic characteristics of a journal. This paper aims to investigate their use. Design/methodology/approach - As a case study the yield sequences of the journals Nature and Science from 1955 onward are determined. Similarities and dissimilarities between these sequences are discussed and factors affecting yield periods are determined. Findings - The study finds that yield sequences make dynamic aspects of a journal visible, as reflected through citations. Exceptional circumstances (here the publication of Laemmli's paper in 1970 in the journal Nature) become clearly visible. The average number of references per article, the citation distribution and the size of the database used to collect citations are factors influencing yield sequences. Originality/value - A new dynamic indicator for the study of journals is introduced.
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996)
0.01
0.006854752 = product of:
0.020564256 = sum of:
0.020564256 = product of:
0.041128512 = sum of:
0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041128512 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050593734 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
-
Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006)
0.01
0.006854752 = product of:
0.020564256 = sum of:
0.020564256 = product of:
0.041128512 = sum of:
0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041128512 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050593734 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:26:24
