-
Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007)
0.03
0.02650718 = product of:
0.07952154 = sum of:
0.07952154 = sum of:
0.054653086 = weight(_text_:digital in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054653086 = score(doc=875,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
0.02486845 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02486845 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Die Bereitstellung und Nutzung digitaler Bibliotheken entwickelt sich allmählich zum Standard der Literatur und Informationsversorgung in Wissenschaft und Forschung. Ganzen Disziplinen genügt oftmals die verfügbare digitale Information, Printmedien werden besonders im STM-Segment zu einem Nischenprodukt. Digitale Texte können beliebig eingebaut, kopiert und nachgenutzt werden, die Verlinkung zwischen Metadaten und Volltexten bringt weitere Nutzungsvorteile. Dabei sind die Angebote von Digital Libraries Bestandteil eines ganzheitlichen digitalen Ansatzes, wonach die elektronische Informations- und Literaturversorgung integraler Bestandteil von E-Science (Enhanced Science) oder Cyberinfrastructure darstellt. Hierbei verschmelzen dann Produktion, Diskussion, Distribution und Rezeption der wissenschaftlichen Inhalte auf einer einzigen digitalen Plattform. Damit sind dann nicht nur die Literatur- und Informationsversorgung (Digital Libraries), sondern auch die Wissenschaft selbst digital geworden. Diese dramatische Veränderung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation hat direkte Auswirkungen auf die Messung der Wissenschaftskommunikation, also auf die Evaluation von wissenschaftlichem Output. Bisherige Systeme der Wissenschaftsvermessung basieren hauptsächlich auf bibliometrischen Analysen, d.h. der Quantifizierung des Outputs und dessen Rezeption (Zitierhäufigkeit). Basis dafür sind insbesondere im STM-Bereich die international anerkannten Datenbanken des ISI (Thomson Scientific) insbesondere der Science Citation Index, SCI) oder vielleicht zukünftig das Konkurrenzprodukt SCOPUS des Wissenschaftskonzerns Reed Elsevier. Die Digitalisierung der Wissenschaft in ihrem kompletten Lebenszyklus, die zunehmende Nutzung und Akzeptanz von Dokumentenrepositorien, Institutsservern und anderen elektronischen Publikationsformen im Rahmen von E-Science erfordern und ermöglichen zugleich den Nachweis von Output und Rezeption durch neue bibliometrische Formen, etwa der Webometrie (Webmetrics). Im vorliegenden Paper haben wir hierzu Analysen durchgeführt und stellen eine Abschätzung vor, wie sich der Anteil von webometrisch erfassbarer und zugänglicher wissenschaftlicher Literatur im Vergleich zu Literatur, die mit den Standardsystemen nachgewiesen werden kann im Laufe der letzten Jahre verändert hat. Dabei haben wir unterschiedliche Disziplinen und Länder berücksichtigt. Zudem wird ein Vergleich der webometrischen Nachweisqualität so unterschiedlicher Systeme wie SCI, SCOPUS und Google Scholar vorgestellt.
- Date
- 23.12.2007 19:22:21
-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.01
0.0132631725 = product of:
0.039789516 = sum of:
0.039789516 = product of:
0.07957903 = sum of:
0.07957903 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07957903 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
-
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
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.01
0.0132631725 = product of:
0.039789516 = sum of:
0.039789516 = product of:
0.07957903 = sum of:
0.07957903 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07957903 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
-
Couto, T.; Cristo, M.; Gonçalves, M.A.; Calado, P.; Ziviani, N.; Moura, E.; Ribeiro-Neto, B.: ¬A comparative study of citations and links in document classification (2006)
0.01
0.012881855 = product of:
0.03864556 = sum of:
0.03864556 = product of:
0.07729112 = sum of:
0.07729112 = weight(_text_:digital in 2531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07729112 = score(doc=2531,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.5337628 = fieldWeight in 2531, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2531)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- It is well known that links are an important source of information when dealing with Web collections. However, the question remains on whether the same techniques that are used on the Web can be applied to collections of documents containing citations between scientific papers. In this work we present a comparative study of digital library citations and Web links, in the context of automatic text classification. We show that there are in fact differences between citations and links in this context. For the comparison, we run a series of experiments using a digital library of computer science papers and a Web directory. In our reference collections, measures based on co-citation tend to perform better for pages in the Web directory, with gains up to 37% over text based classifiers, while measures based on bibliographic coupling perform better in a digital library. We also propose a simple and effective way of combining a traditional text based classifier with a citation-link based classifier. This combination is based on the notion of classifier reliability and presented gains of up to 14% in micro-averaged F1 in the Web collection. However, no significant gain was obtained in the digital library. Finally, a user study was performed to further investigate the causes for these results. We discovered that misclassifications by the citation-link based classifiers are in fact difficult cases, hard to classify even for humans.
- Source
- International Conference on Digital Libraries: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
-
Esler, S.L.; Nelson, M.L.: Evolution of scientific and technical information distribution (1998)
0.01
0.012621589 = product of:
0.037864767 = sum of:
0.037864767 = product of:
0.075729534 = sum of:
0.075729534 = weight(_text_:digital in 332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.075729534 = score(doc=332,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 332, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=332)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- WWW and related information technologies are transforming the distribution of scientific and technical information (STI). We examine 11 recent, functioning digital libraries focusing on the distribution of STI publications, including journal articles, conference papers, and technical reports. We introduce 4 main categories of digital library projects: based on the architecture (distributed vs. centralized) and the contributor (traditional publisher vs. authoring individual / organization). Many digital library prototypes merely automate existing publishing practices or focus solely on the digitization of the publishing practices cycle output, not sampling and capturing elements of the input. Still others do not consider for distribution the large body of 'gray literature'. We address these deficiencies in the current model of STI exchange by suggesting methods for expanding the scope and target of digital libraries by focusing on a greater source of technical publications and using 'buckets', an object-oriented construct for grouping logically related information objects, to include holdings other than technical publications
-
Biagetti, M.T.; Iacono, A.; Trombone, A.: Testing library catalog analysis as a bibliometric indicator for research evaluation in social sciences and humanities (2018)
0.01
0.011899749 = product of:
0.035699245 = sum of:
0.035699245 = product of:
0.07139849 = sum of:
0.07139849 = weight(_text_:digital in 4868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07139849 = score(doc=4868,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.493069 = fieldWeight in 4868, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4868)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
-
Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998)
0.01
0.011723099 = product of:
0.035169296 = sum of:
0.035169296 = product of:
0.07033859 = sum of:
0.07033859 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07033859 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:22:35
-
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
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.01
0.011605277 = product of:
0.03481583 = sum of:
0.03481583 = product of:
0.06963166 = sum of:
0.06963166 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06963166 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, 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=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.01
0.011605277 = product of:
0.03481583 = sum of:
0.03481583 = product of:
0.06963166 = sum of:
0.06963166 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06963166 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, 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=6902)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990)
0.01
0.011605277 = product of:
0.03481583 = sum of:
0.03481583 = product of:
0.06963166 = sum of:
0.06963166 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06963166 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, 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=4689)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:55
-
Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015)
0.01
0.0112844845 = product of:
0.033853453 = sum of:
0.033853453 = sum of:
0.018932384 = weight(_text_:digital in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018932384 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.13074467 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.014921068 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014921068 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.01
0.009947379 = product of:
0.029842136 = sum of:
0.029842136 = product of:
0.059684273 = sum of:
0.059684273 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059684273 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, 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=4890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.01
0.009947379 = product of:
0.029842136 = sum of:
0.029842136 = product of:
0.059684273 = sum of:
0.059684273 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059684273 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12855195 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Lozano, G.A.; Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.: ¬The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age (2012)
0.01
0.009108848 = product of:
0.027326543 = sum of:
0.027326543 = product of:
0.054653086 = sum of:
0.054653086 = weight(_text_:digital in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054653086 = score(doc=486,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Huntington, P.; Nicholas, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Tenopir, C.: Article decay in the digital environment : an analysis of usage of OhioLINK by date of publication, employing deep log methods (2006)
0.01
0.0074373423 = product of:
0.022312026 = sum of:
0.022312026 = product of:
0.044624053 = sum of:
0.044624053 = weight(_text_:digital in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044624053 = score(doc=214,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The article presents the early findings of an exploratory deep log analysis of journal usage on OhioLINK, conducted as part of the MaxData project, funded by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services. OhioLINK, the original Big Deal, provides a single digital platform of nearly 6,000 full-text journals for more than 600,000 people; for the purposes of the analysis, the raw logs were obtained from OhioLINK for the period June 2004 to December 2004. During this period approximately 1,215,000 items were viewed on campus in October 2004 and 1,894,000 items viewed off campus between June and December 2004. This article provides an analysis of the age of material that users consulted. From a methodological point of view OhioLINK offered an attractive platform to conduct age of publication usage studies because it is one of the oldest e-journal libraries and thus offered a relatively long archive and stable platform to conduct the studies. The project sought to determine whether the subject, the search approach adopted, and the type of journal item viewed (contents page, abstract, full-text article, etc.) was a factor in regard to the age of articles used.
-
Kenyon, T.: Defining and measuring research impact in the humanities, social sciences and creative arts in the digital age (2014)
0.01
0.0074373423 = product of:
0.022312026 = sum of:
0.022312026 = product of:
0.044624053 = sum of:
0.044624053 = weight(_text_:digital in 1389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044624053 = score(doc=1389,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14480425 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03670994 = queryNorm
0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 1389, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1389)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- There are powerful reasons for and against research ers taking the lead in formulating research impact measures for disciplines in the humanities, social sciences and creative arts (HSSCA). On balance, the reasons in favour are stronger, not least because such measures are otherwise apt to be formulated badly by those with little expertise. This invites us to inquire about the sorts of measures would best apply to HSSCA disciplines (among others), and whether some of the more popular impact measures, such as citation indices, really are reasonable indicators of impact or quality in these domains. It also raises questions about how burgeoning modes of research, knowledge mobilization, and impact tracking in the digital domain play into HSSCA research measures. On reflection, empirically adequate and arithmetically meaningful HSSCA impact measures will be pluralistic, non-reductive, and highly context-dependent; they are unlikely to lend themselves to the current pseudoscience of single-dimensional ordinal rankings between research institutions. Nevertheless they may support comparisons of interesting sorts, and enable assessments for accountability and planning purposes.
