Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.0132631725 = product of:
  0.039789516 = sum of:
    0.039789516 = product of:
      0.07957903 = sum of:
        0.07957903 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07957903 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  2. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.01 
    0.0132631725 = product of:
  0.039789516 = sum of:
    0.039789516 = product of:
      0.07957903 = sum of:
        0.07957903 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07957903 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  3. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.01 
    0.011723099 = product of:
  0.035169296 = sum of:
    0.035169296 = product of:
      0.07033859 = sum of:
        0.07033859 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07033859 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  4. Lawrence, S.; Giles, C.L.; Bollaker, K.: Digital libraries and Autonomous Citation Indexing (1999) 0.01 
    0.008924812 = product of:
  0.026774434 = sum of:
    0.026774434 = product of:
      0.05354887 = sum of:
        0.05354887 = weight(_text_:digital in 4951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05354887 = score(doc=4951,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 4951, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Autonomous Citation Indexing (ACI) automates the construction of citation indexes - Lower cost, wider availability: ACI is completely autonomous - no manual effort is required. This should result in lower cost and wider availability. Broader coverage: Because no manual effort is required, there are few barriers to indexing a broader range of literature, compared to indexes like the Science Citation Index that require manual effort. More timely feedback: Conference papers, technical reports, and preprints can be indexed, providing far more timely feedback in many cases (often such publications appear far in advance of corresponding journal publications). Citation context: ACI groups together the context of citations to a given article, allowing researchers to easily see what is being said and why the article was cited. Benefits for both literature search and evaluation. Freely available: Our implementation of ACI is available at no cost for non-commercial use. Several orgnizations have requested the software and expressed interest in providing an index within their domain, or in using ACI within their own digital libraries.
  5. Sidiropoulos, A.; Manolopoulos, Y.: ¬A new perspective to automatically rank scientific conferences using digital libraries (2005) 0.01 
    0.008924812 = product of:
  0.026774434 = sum of:
    0.026774434 = product of:
      0.05354887 = sum of:
        0.05354887 = weight(_text_:digital in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05354887 = score(doc=1011,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Citation analysis is performed in order to evaluate authors and scientific collections, such as journals and conference proceedings. Currently, two major systems exist that perform citation analysis: Science Citation Index (SCI) by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and CiteSeer by the NEC Research Institute. The SCI, mostly a manual system up until recently, is based on the notion of the ISI Impact Factor, which has been used extensively for citation analysis purposes. On the other hand the CiteSeer system is an automatically built digital library using agents technology, also based on the notion of ISI Impact Factor. In this paper, we investigate new alternative notions besides the ISI impact factor, in order to provide a novel approach aiming at ranking scientific collections. Furthermore, we present a web-based system that has been built by extracting data from the Databases and Logic Programming (DBLP) website of the University of Trier. Our system, by using the new citation metrics, emerges as a useful tool for ranking scientific collections. In this respect, some first remarks are presented, e.g. on ranking conferences related to databases.
  6. Leydesdorff, L.; Salah, A.A.A.: Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index : the journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "digital humanities" as a topic (2010) 0.01 
    0.008924812 = product of:
  0.026774434 = sum of:
    0.026774434 = product of:
      0.05354887 = sum of:
        0.05354887 = weight(_text_:digital in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05354887 = score(doc=3436,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.
  7. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.01 
    0.008289483 = product of:
  0.02486845 = sum of:
    0.02486845 = product of:
      0.0497369 = sum of:
        0.0497369 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0497369 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, 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=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  8. Feitelson, D.G.; Yovel, U.: Predictive ranking of computer scientists using CiteSeer data (2004) 0.01 
    0.007362594 = product of:
  0.02208778 = sum of:
    0.02208778 = product of:
      0.04417556 = sum of:
        0.04417556 = weight(_text_:digital in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04417556 = score(doc=1259,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The increasing availability of digital libraries with cross-citation data on the Internet enables new studies in bibliometrics. The paper focuses on the list of 10.000 top-cited authors in computer science available as part of CiteSeer. Using data from several consecutive lists a model of how authors accrue citations with time is constructed. By comparing the rate at which individual authors accrue citations with the average rate, predictions are made of how their ranking in the list will change in the future.
  9. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.00703386 = product of:
  0.02110158 = sum of:
    0.02110158 = product of:
      0.04220316 = sum of:
        0.04220316 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04220316 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  10. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.01 
    0.0066315862 = product of:
  0.019894758 = sum of:
    0.019894758 = product of:
      0.039789516 = sum of:
        0.039789516 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039789516 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  11. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01 
    0.0058026384 = product of:
  0.017407915 = sum of:
    0.017407915 = product of:
      0.03481583 = sum of:
        0.03481583 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03481583 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  12. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.0058026384 = product of:
  0.017407915 = sum of:
    0.017407915 = product of:
      0.03481583 = sum of:
        0.03481583 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03481583 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  13. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01 
    0.0058026384 = product of:
  0.017407915 = sum of:
    0.017407915 = product of:
      0.03481583 = sum of:
        0.03481583 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03481583 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  14. Joint, N.: Bemused by bibliometrics : using citation analysis to evaluate research quality (2008) 0.01 
    0.005258995 = product of:
  0.015776984 = sum of:
    0.015776984 = product of:
      0.03155397 = sum of:
        0.03155397 = weight(_text_:digital in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03155397 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.
  15. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.00 
    0.0049736896 = product of:
  0.014921068 = sum of:
    0.014921068 = product of:
      0.029842136 = sum of:
        0.029842136 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029842136 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
  16. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.00 
    0.0049736896 = product of:
  0.014921068 = sum of:
    0.014921068 = product of:
      0.029842136 = sum of:
        0.029842136 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029842136 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  17. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.00 
    0.0049736896 = product of:
  0.014921068 = sum of:
    0.014921068 = product of:
      0.029842136 = sum of:
        0.029842136 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029842136 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
  18. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.00 
    0.0049736896 = product of:
  0.014921068 = sum of:
    0.014921068 = product of:
      0.029842136 = sum of:
        0.029842136 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029842136 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  19. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.00 
    0.0049736896 = product of:
  0.014921068 = sum of:
    0.014921068 = product of:
      0.029842136 = sum of:
        0.029842136 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029842136 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  20. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.00 
    0.0049736896 = product of:
  0.014921068 = sum of:
    0.014921068 = product of:
      0.029842136 = sum of:
        0.029842136 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029842136 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03670994 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 20
  • d 5

Types

Themes