Search (32 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. He, Z.-L.: International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority (2009) 0.01 
    0.010744396 = product of:
  0.042977583 = sum of:
    0.042977583 = weight(_text_:22 in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042977583 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3122, 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=3122)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    26. 9.2009 11:22:05
  2. Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006) 0.01 
    0.0089536635 = product of:
  0.035814654 = sum of:
    0.035814654 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035814654 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:11:05
  3. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.0089536635 = product of:
  0.035814654 = sum of:
    0.035814654 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035814654 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
  4. Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007) 0.01 
    0.0089536635 = product of:
  0.035814654 = sum of:
    0.035814654 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035814654 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    23.12.2007 19:22:21
  5. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.01 
    0.0089536635 = product of:
  0.035814654 = sum of:
    0.035814654 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035814654 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  6. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.0089536635 = product of:
  0.035814654 = sum of:
    0.035814654 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035814654 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
  7. Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K.: Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation (2009) 0.01 
    0.0089536635 = product of:
  0.035814654 = sum of:
    0.035814654 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035814654 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, 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=2743)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:52:50
  8. Mukherjee, B.: Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? : a bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar (2009) 0.01 
    0.0089536635 = product of:
  0.035814654 = sum of:
    0.035814654 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035814654 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:54:59
  9. Costas, R.; Bordons, M.; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system : Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers (2009) 0.01 
    0.0089536635 = product of:
  0.035814654 = sum of:
    0.035814654 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035814654 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:02:48
  10. Wettlauf der Wissenschaft (2004) 0.01 
    0.007162931 = product of:
  0.028651724 = sum of:
    0.028651724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028651724 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2495, 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=2495)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Online Mitteilungen. 2004, Nr.79, S.22-23 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 57(2004) H.2]
  11. Tonta, Y.; Ünal, Y.: Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests (2005) 0.01 
    0.007162931 = product of:
  0.028651724 = sum of:
    0.028651724 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028651724 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, 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=3271)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 3.2005 10:54:22
  12. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01 
    0.007162931 = product of:
  0.028651724 = sum of:
    0.028651724 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028651724 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18513593 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052868344 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35

Authors

Languages

  • e 27
  • d 5

Types

  • a 32
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes