-
Albarrán, P.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: References made and citations received by scientific articles (2011)
0.03
0.032694243 = product of:
0.09808272 = sum of:
0.09808272 = sum of:
0.058824293 = weight(_text_:2002 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058824293 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20701107 = queryWeight, product of:
4.28654 = idf(docFreq=1652, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.28416014 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.28654 = idf(docFreq=1652, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
0.03925843 = weight(_text_:22 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03925843 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This article studies massive evidence about references made and citations received after a 5-year citation window by 3.7 million articles published in 1998 to 2002 in 22 scientific fields. We find that the distributions of references made and citations received share a number of basic features across sciences. Reference distributions are rather skewed to the right while citation distributions are even more highly skewed: The mean is about 20 percentage points to the right of the median, and articles with a remarkable or an outstanding number of citations represent about 9% of the total. Moreover, the existence of a power law representing the upper tail of citation distributions cannot be rejected in 17 fields whose articles represent 74.7% of the total. Contrary to the evidence in other contexts, the value of the scale parameter is above 3.5 in 13 of the 17 cases. Finally, power laws are typically small, but capture a considerable proportion of the total citations received.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.01
0.013086144 = product of:
0.03925843 = sum of:
0.03925843 = product of:
0.07851686 = sum of:
0.07851686 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07851686 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = 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
-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.01
0.011554184 = product of:
0.034662552 = sum of:
0.034662552 = product of:
0.069325104 = sum of:
0.069325104 = weight(_text_:2002 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069325104 = score(doc=3231,freq=4.0), product of:
0.20701107 = queryWeight, product of:
4.28654 = idf(docFreq=1652, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.33488595 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.28654 = idf(docFreq=1652, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
-
Arboit, A.E.; Cabrini Gracio, M.C.; Oliveira, E.F.T. de; Bufrem, L.S.: ¬The relationship between authors and main thematic categories in the field of knowledge organization : a bibliometric approach (2012)
0.01
0.0098040495 = product of:
0.029412147 = sum of:
0.029412147 = product of:
0.058824293 = sum of:
0.058824293 = weight(_text_:2002 in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058824293 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20701107 = queryWeight, product of:
4.28654 = idf(docFreq=1652, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.28416014 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.28654 = idf(docFreq=1652, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This is a study about the relationships between authors and the main thematic categories in the papers published in the last five International ISKO Conferences, held between 2002 and 2010. The aim is to map the domain as ISKO conferences are considered the most representative forum in the field. The published papers are considered to indicate the relationships between authors and themes. The Classification Scheme for Knowledge Organization Literature (CSKOL) was used to categorize the papers. The theoretical and methodological foundations of the study can be found in the concept of domain analysis proposed by Hjørland. The analysis of the papers (n=146) led to the identification of the most productive authors, the networks representing the relationships between the authors as also the categories that constitute the primary areas of research.
-
Scholarly metrics under the microscope : from citation analysis to academic auditing (2015)
0.01
0.008724097 = product of:
0.02617229 = sum of:
0.02617229 = product of:
0.05234458 = sum of:
0.05234458 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05234458 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2017 17:12:50
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.008724097 = product of:
0.02617229 = sum of:
0.02617229 = product of:
0.05234458 = sum of:
0.05234458 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05234458 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016)
0.01
0.008724097 = product of:
0.02617229 = sum of:
0.02617229 = product of:
0.05234458 = sum of:
0.05234458 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05234458 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2019 11:22:31
-
McCain, K.W.: Eponymy and obliteration by incorporation : The case of the "Nash Equilibrium" (2011)
0.01
0.008170041 = product of:
0.024510123 = sum of:
0.024510123 = product of:
0.049020246 = sum of:
0.049020246 = weight(_text_:2002 in 4479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049020246 = score(doc=4479,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20701107 = queryWeight, product of:
4.28654 = idf(docFreq=1652, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.2368001 = fieldWeight in 4479, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.28654 = idf(docFreq=1652, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4479)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In order to examine the phenomena of eponymy and Obliteration by Incorporation at both the aggregate and individual subject level, the literature relating to the game-theoretic concept of the Nash Equilibrium was studied over the period 1950-2008. Almost 5,300 bibliographic database records for publications explicitly citing at least one of two papers by John Nash and/or using the phrase "Nash Equilibrium/Nash Equilibria" were retrieved from the Web of Science and various subject-related databases. Breadth of influence is demonstrated by the wide variety of subject areas in which Nash Equilibrium-related publications occur, including in the natural and social sciences, humanities, law, and medicine. Fifty percent of all items have been published since 2002, suggesting that Nash's papers have experienced "delayed recognition." A degree of Obliteration by Incorporation is observed in that implicit citations (use of the phrase without citation) increased over the time period studied, although the proportion of all citations that are implicit has remained relatively stable during the most recent decade with an annual rate of between 60% and 70%; subject areas vary in their level of obliteration.
-
McCain, K.W.: Assessing obliteration by incorporation : issues and caveats (2012)
0.01
0.008170041 = product of:
0.024510123 = sum of:
0.024510123 = product of:
0.049020246 = sum of:
0.049020246 = weight(_text_:2002 in 485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049020246 = score(doc=485,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20701107 = queryWeight, product of:
4.28654 = idf(docFreq=1652, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.2368001 = fieldWeight in 485, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.28654 = idf(docFreq=1652, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=485)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Empirical studies of obliteration by incorporation (OBI) may be conducted at the level of the database record or the fulltext citation-in-context. To assess the difference between the two approaches, 1,040 articles with a variant of the phrase "evolutionarily stable strategies" (ESS) were identified by searching the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA) and discipline-level databases. The majority (72%) of all articles were published in life sciences journals. The ESS concept is associated with a small set of canonical publications by John Maynard Smith; OBI represents a decoupling of the use of the phrase and a citation to a John Maynard Smith publication. Across all articles at the record level, OBI is measured by the number of articles with the phrase in the database record but which lack a reference to a source article (implicit citations). At the citation-in-context level, articles that coupled a non-Maynard Smith citation with the ESS phrase (indirect citations) were counted along with those that cited relevant Maynard Smith publications (explicit citations) and OBI counted only based on those articles that lacked any citation coupled with the ESS text phrase. The degree of OBI observed depended on the level of analysis. Record-level OBI trended upward, peaking in 2002 (62%), with a secondary drop and rebound to 53% (2008). Citation-in-context OBI percentages were lower with no clear pattern. Several issues relating to the design of empirical OBI studies are discussed.
-
Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014)
0.01
0.0077110846 = product of:
0.023133254 = sum of:
0.023133254 = product of:
0.046266507 = sum of:
0.046266507 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046266507 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
-
Yan, E.: Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines (2014)
0.01
0.0077110846 = product of:
0.023133254 = sum of:
0.023133254 = product of:
0.046266507 = sum of:
0.046266507 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046266507 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1534)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 26.10.2014 20:22:22
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.01
0.0077110846 = product of:
0.023133254 = sum of:
0.023133254 = product of:
0.046266507 = sum of:
0.046266507 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046266507 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
-
Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011)
0.01
0.0076335846 = product of:
0.022900753 = sum of:
0.022900753 = product of:
0.045801505 = sum of:
0.045801505 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045801505 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, 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=4187)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:53:00
-
Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011)
0.01
0.0076335846 = product of:
0.022900753 = sum of:
0.022900753 = product of:
0.045801505 = sum of:
0.045801505 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045801505 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:02:21
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.01
0.0076335846 = product of:
0.022900753 = sum of:
0.022900753 = product of:
0.045801505 = sum of:
0.045801505 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045801505 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 14:04:09
-
Vieira, E.S.; Cabral, J.A.S.; Gomes, J.A.N.F.: Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions (2014)
0.01
0.0076335846 = product of:
0.022900753 = sum of:
0.022900753 = product of:
0.045801505 = sum of:
0.045801505 = weight(_text_:22 in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045801505 = score(doc=1221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1221, 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=1221)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 18:22:21
-
Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010)
0.01
0.006543072 = product of:
0.019629216 = sum of:
0.019629216 = product of:
0.03925843 = sum of:
0.03925843 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03925843 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 28. 9.2010 12:54:22
-
D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011)
0.01
0.006543072 = product of:
0.019629216 = sum of:
0.019629216 = product of:
0.03925843 = sum of:
0.03925843 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03925843 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:06:52
-
Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011)
0.01
0.006543072 = product of:
0.019629216 = sum of:
0.019629216 = product of:
0.03925843 = sum of:
0.03925843 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03925843 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:21:28
-
Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012)
0.01
0.006543072 = product of:
0.019629216 = sum of:
0.019629216 = product of:
0.03925843 = sum of:
0.03925843 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03925843 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16911483 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048293278 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:23:32
