Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.14 
    0.13966143 = product of:
  0.27932286 = sum of:
    0.27932286 = sum of:
      0.18234678 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.18234678 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = queryNorm
          0.63091993 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.09697609 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09697609 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05061213 = 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)
    Abstract
    Arranged according to subjects the bibliography lists 79 references,mostly with terse abstracts.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  2. Whitley, K.M.: Analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science citation searches (2002) 0.06 
    0.06382137 = product of:
  0.12764274 = sum of:
    0.12764274 = product of:
      0.25528547 = sum of:
        0.25528547 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25528547 = score(doc=1255,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.8832879 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Chemical Abstracts Service recently unveiled citation searching in Chemical Abstracts. With Chemical Abstracts and Science Citation Index both now available for citation searching, this study compares the duplication and uniqueness of citing references for works of chemistry researchers for the years 1999-2001. The two indexes cover very similar source material, so one would expect the citation results to be very similar. This analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science shows some important differences as the databases are currently offered. Authors and institutions using citation counts as measures of scientific productivity should take note.
    Object
    Chemical abstracts
  3. Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008) 0.05 
    0.045128524 = product of:
  0.09025705 = sum of:
    0.09025705 = product of:
      0.1805141 = sum of:
        0.1805141 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1805141 = score(doc=1735,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.6245789 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings - The study suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value - The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation-enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.
    Object
    Chemical Abstracts
  4. Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003) 0.04 
    0.039479237 = product of:
  0.078958474 = sum of:
    0.078958474 = product of:
      0.15791695 = sum of:
        0.15791695 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15791695 = score(doc=5156,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.54639274 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Hyland examines self referencing practices by analyzing their textual uses in 240 randomly chosen research papers and 800 abstracts across 80 expert selected journals from 1997 and 1998 in eight disciplines, as a key to their author's assumptions as to their own role in the research process and to the practices of their disciplines. Scanned texts produced a corpus of nearly 1.5 million words which was searched using WordPilot for first person pronouns and all mentions of an author's previous work. There were 6,689 instances of self reference in the papers and 459 in the abstracts; on the average 28 cases per paper, 17% of which were self citations. There was one self mention in every two abstracts. Nearly 70% of self reference and mention occurred in humanities and social science papers, but biologists employed the most self citation overall and 12% of hard science citations were found to be self citations. Interviews indicated that self citation was deemed important in establishing authority by fitting oneself into the research framework. Self mention arises in four main contexts: stating the goal or the structure of the paper, explaining a procedure, stating results or a claim, and elaborating an argument.
  5. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I.: Bibliometric maps of field of science (2005) 0.04 
    0.03868159 = product of:
  0.07736318 = sum of:
    0.07736318 = product of:
      0.15472636 = sum of:
        0.15472636 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15472636 = score(doc=1069,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.5353533 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The present paper is devoted to two directions in algorithmic classificatory procedures: the journal co-citation analysis as an example of citation networks and lexical analysis of keywords in the titles and texts. What is common to those approaches is the general idea of normalization of deviations of the observed data from the mathematical expectation. The application of the same formula leads to discovery of statistically significant links between objects (journals in one case, keywords - in the other). The results of the journal co-citation analysis are reflected in tables and map for field "Women's Studies" and for field "Information Science and Library Science". An experimental attempt at establishing textual links between words was carried out on two samples from SSCI Data base: (1) EDUCATION and (2) ETHICS. The EDUCATION file included 2180 documents (of which 751 had abstracts); the ETHICS file included 807 documents (289 abstracts). Some examples of the results of this pilot study are given in tabular form . The binary links between words discovered in this way may form triplets or other groups with more than two member words.
  6. Trkulja, V.: Weltgrößte Abstracts- und Zitationsdatenbank aus dem wissenschaftlichen Web (2005) 0.03 
    0.031910684 = product of:
  0.06382137 = sum of:
    0.06382137 = product of:
      0.12764274 = sum of:
        0.12764274 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 3437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12764274 = score(doc=3437,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.44164395 = fieldWeight in 3437, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3437)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  7. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.027428979 = product of:
  0.054857958 = sum of:
    0.054857958 = product of:
      0.109715916 = sum of:
        0.109715916 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109715916 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  8. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.03 
    0.027428979 = product of:
  0.054857958 = sum of:
    0.054857958 = product of:
      0.109715916 = sum of:
        0.109715916 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109715916 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  9. Leydesdorff, L.: On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data : Salton's Cosine versus the Jaccard index (2008) 0.03 
    0.027352015 = product of:
  0.05470403 = sum of:
    0.05470403 = product of:
      0.10940806 = sum of:
        0.10940806 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 1341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10940806 = score(doc=1341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.37855196 = fieldWeight in 1341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The debate about which similarity measure one should use for the normalization in the case of Author Co-citation Analysis (ACA) is further complicated when one distinguishes between the symmetrical co-citation - or, more generally, co-occurrence - matrix and the underlying asymmetrical citation - occurrence - matrix. In the Web environment, the approach of retrieving original citation data is often not feasible. In that case, one should use the Jaccard index, but preferentially after adding the number of total citations (i.e., occurrences) on the main diagonal. Unlike Salton's cosine and the Pearson correlation, the Jaccard index abstracts from the shape of the distributions and focuses only on the intersection and the sum of the two sets. Since the correlations in the co-occurrence matrix may be spurious, this property of the Jaccard index can be considered as an advantage in this case.
  10. Kostoff, R.N.; Rio, J.A. del; Humenik, J.A.; Garcia, E.O.; Ramirez, A.M.: Citation mining : integrating text mining and bibliometrics for research user profiling (2001) 0.03 
    0.025787728 = product of:
  0.051575456 = sum of:
    0.051575456 = product of:
      0.10315091 = sum of:
        0.10315091 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 6850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10315091 = score(doc=6850,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.3569022 = fieldWeight in 6850, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6850)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Identifying the users and impact of research is important for research performers, managers, evaluators, and sponsors. It is important to know whether the audience reached is the audience desired. It is useful to understand the technical characteristics of the other research/development/applications impacted by the originating research, and to understand other characteristics (names, organizations, countries) of the users impacted by the research. Because of the many indirect pathways through which fundamental research can impact applications, identifying the user audience and the research impacts can be very complex and time consuming. The purpose of this article is to describe a novel approach for identifying the pathways through which research can impact other research, technology development, and applications, and to identify the technical and infrastructure characteristics of the user population. A novel literature-based approach was developed to identify the user community and its characteristics. The research performed is characterized by one or more articles accessed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) database, beccause the SCI's citation-based structure enables the capability to perform citation studies easily. The user community is characterized by the articles in the SCI that cite the original research articles, and that cite the succeeding generations of these articles as well. Text mining is performed on the citing articles to identify the technical areas impacted by the research, the relationships among these technical areas, and relationships among the technical areas and the infrastructure (authors, journals, organizations). A key component of text mining, concept clustering, was used to provide both a taxonomy of the citing articles' technical themes and further technical insights based on theme relationships arising from the grouping process. Bibliometrics is performed on the citing articles to profile the user characteristics. Citation Mining, this integration of citation bibliometrics and text mining, is applied to the 307 first generation citing articles of a fundamental physics article on the dynamics of vibrating sand-piles. Most of the 307 citing articles were basic research whose main themes were aligned with those of the cited article. However, about 20% of the citing articles were research or development in other disciplines, or development within the same discipline. The text mining alone identified the intradiscipline applications and extradiscipline impacts and applications; this was confirmed by detailed reading of the 307 abstracts. The combination of citation bibliometrics and text mining provides a synergy unavailable with each approach taken independently. Furthermore, text mining is a REQUIREMENT for a feasible comprehensive research impact determination. The integrated multigeneration citation analysis required for broad research impact determination of highly cited articles will produce thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of citing article Abstracts.
  11. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008) 0.02 
    0.018234678 = product of:
  0.036469355 = sum of:
    0.036469355 = product of:
      0.07293871 = sum of:
        0.07293871 = weight(_text_:abstracts in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07293871 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2890173 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = queryNorm
            0.25236797 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7104354 = idf(docFreq=397, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.
  12. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.02 
    0.017143112 = product of:
  0.034286223 = sum of:
    0.034286223 = product of:
      0.06857245 = sum of:
        0.06857245 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06857245 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  13. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.014546414 = product of:
  0.029092828 = sum of:
    0.029092828 = product of:
      0.058185656 = sum of:
        0.058185656 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058185656 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  14. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.01 
    0.0137144895 = product of:
  0.027428979 = sum of:
    0.027428979 = product of:
      0.054857958 = sum of:
        0.054857958 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054857958 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  15. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01 
    0.012000178 = product of:
  0.024000356 = sum of:
    0.024000356 = product of:
      0.048000712 = sum of:
        0.048000712 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048000712 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  16. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.012000178 = product of:
  0.024000356 = sum of:
    0.024000356 = product of:
      0.048000712 = sum of:
        0.048000712 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048000712 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  17. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01 
    0.012000178 = product of:
  0.024000356 = sum of:
    0.024000356 = product of:
      0.048000712 = sum of:
        0.048000712 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048000712 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  18. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.01 
    0.010285866 = product of:
  0.020571733 = sum of:
    0.020571733 = product of:
      0.041143466 = sum of:
        0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041143466 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  19. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.01 
    0.010285866 = product of:
  0.020571733 = sum of:
    0.020571733 = product of:
      0.041143466 = sum of:
        0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041143466 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  20. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.01 
    0.010285866 = product of:
  0.020571733 = sum of:
    0.020571733 = product of:
      0.041143466 = sum of:
        0.041143466 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041143466 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17723505 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05061213 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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."

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 22
  • d 6

Types

Themes