Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Rousseau, R."
  1. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.07 
    0.06702864 = product of:
  0.08937152 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.071942665 = weight(_text_:frequency in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071942665 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.2602482 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.012720408 = product of:
      0.025440816 = sum of:
        0.025440816 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025440816 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
  2. Jin, B.; Li, L.; Rousseau, R.: Long-term influences of interventions in the normal development of science : China and the cultural revolution (2004) 0.05 
    0.051439807 = product of:
  0.10287961 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=2232,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 2232, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2232)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.09581695 = weight(_text_:term in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09581695 = score(doc=2232,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.4374403 = fieldWeight in 2232, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2232)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Intellectual and technological talents and skills are the driving force for scientific and industrial development, especially in our times characterized by a knowledgebased economy. Major events in society and related political decisions, however, can have a long-term effect an a country's scientific weIl-being. Although the Cultural Revolution took place from 1966 to 1976, its aftermath can still be felt. This is shown by this study of the production and productivity of Chinese scientists as a function of their age. Based an the 1995-2000 data from the Chinese Science Citation database (CSCD), this article investigates the year-by-year age distribution of scientific and technological personnel publishing in China. It is shown that the "Talent Fault" originating during the Cultural Revolution still exists, and that a new gap resulting from recent brain drain might be developing. The purpose of this work is to provide necessary information about the current situation and especially the existing problems of the S&T workforce in China.
  3. Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004) 0.03 
    0.032392055 = product of:
  0.06478411 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
  4. Rousseau, R.: Journal evaluation : technical and practical issues (2002) 0.01 
    0.014115169 = product of:
  0.056460675 = sum of:
    0.056460675 = weight(_text_:term in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056460675 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.25776416 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This essay provides an overview of journal evaluation indicators. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different indicators, together with their range of applicability. The definition of a "quality journal," different notions of impact factors, the meaning of ranking journals, and possible biases in citation databases are also discussed. Attention is given to using the journal impact in evaluation studies. The quality of a journal is a multifaceted notion. Journals can be evaluated for different purposes, and hence the results of such evaluation exercises can be quite different depending on the indicator(s) used. The impact factor, in one of its versions, is probably the most used indicator when it comes to gauging the visibility of a journal on the research front. Generalized impact factors, over periods longer than the traditional two years, are better indicators for the long-term value of a journal. As with all evaluation studies, care must be exercised when considering journal impact factors as a quality indicator. It seems best to use a whole battery of indicators (including several impact factors) and to change this group of indicators depending on the purpose of the evaluation study. Nowadays it goes without saying that special attention is paid to e-journals and specific indicators for this type of journal.
  5. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996) 0.01 
    0.013071639 = product of:
  0.026143279 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
  6. Liu, Y.; Rafols, I.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A framework for knowledge integration and diffusion (2012) 0.01 
    0.011857167 = product of:
  0.047428668 = sum of:
    0.047428668 = product of:
      0.094857335 = sum of:
        0.094857335 = weight(_text_:assessment in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094857335 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to introduce a general framework for the analysis of knowledge integration and diffusion using bibliometric data. Design/methodology/approach - The authors propose that in order to characterise knowledge integration and diffusion of a given issue (the source, for example articles on a topic or by an organisation, etc.), one has to choose a set of elements from the source (the intermediary set, for example references, keywords, etc.). This set can then be classified into categories (cats), thus making it possible to investigate its diversity. The set can also be characterised according to the coherence of a network associated to it. Findings - This framework allows a methodology to be developed to assess knowledge integration and diffusion. Such methodologies can be useful for a number of science policy issues, including the assessment of interdisciplinarity in research and dynamics of research networks. Originality/value - The main contribution of this article is to provide a simple and easy to use generalisation of an existing approach to study interdisciplinarity, bringing knowledge integration and knowledge diffusion together in one framework.
  7. Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012) 0.01 
    0.007950256 = product of:
  0.031801023 = sum of:
    0.031801023 = product of:
      0.063602045 = sum of:
        0.063602045 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063602045 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    14. 2.2012 12:53:22
  8. Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006) 0.00 
    0.0047701527 = product of:
  0.019080611 = sum of:
    0.019080611 = product of:
      0.038161222 = sum of:
        0.038161222 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038161222 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16438834 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:26:24
  9. Rousseau, R.: Use of an existing thesaurus in a knowledge based indexing and retrieval system (1991) 0.00 
    0.0035313342 = product of:
  0.014125337 = sum of:
    0.014125337 = product of:
      0.056501348 = sum of:
        0.056501348 = weight(_text_:based in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056501348 = score(doc=3007,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.39947033 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  10. Hu, X.; Rousseau, R.; Chen, J.: ¬A new approach for measuring the value of patents based on structural indicators for ego patent citation networks (2012) 0.00 
    0.0029132022 = product of:
  0.011652809 = sum of:
    0.011652809 = product of:
      0.046611235 = sum of:
        0.046611235 = weight(_text_:based in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046611235 = score(doc=445,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Technology sectors differ in terms of technological complexity. When studying technology and innovation through patent analysis it is well known that similar amounts of technological knowledge can produce different numbers of patented innovation as output. A new multilayered approach to measure the technological value of patents based on ego patent citation networks (PCNs) is developed in this study. The results show that the structural indicators for the ego PCN developed in this contribution can characterize groups of patents and, hence, in an indirect way, the health of companies.
  11. Zhang, L.; Rousseau, R.; Glänzel, W.: Document-type country profiles (2011) 0.00 
    0.0023542228 = product of:
  0.009416891 = sum of:
    0.009416891 = product of:
      0.037667565 = sum of:
        0.037667565 = weight(_text_:based in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037667565 = score(doc=4487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A bibliometric method for analyzing and visualizing national research profiles is adapted to describe national preferences for publishing particular document types. Similarities in national profiles and national peculiarities are discussed based on the publication output of the 26 most active countries indexed in the Web of Science annual volume 2007.
  12. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Rousseau, S.: TOP-curves (2007) 0.00 
    0.002059945 = product of:
  0.00823978 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Several characteristics of classical Lorenz curves make them unsuitable for the study of a group of topperformers. TOP-curves, defined as a kind of mirror image of TIP-curves used in poverty studies, are shown to possess the properties necessary for adequate empirical ranking of various data arrays, based on the properties of the highest performers (i.e., the core). TOP-curves and essential TOP-curves, also introduced in this article, simultaneously represent the incidence, intensity, and inequality among the top. It is shown that TOPdominance partial order, introduced in this article, is stronger than Lorenz dominance order. In this way, this article contributes to the study of cores, a central issue in applied informetrics.
  13. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬The Hirsch index of a shifted Lotka function and its relation with the impact factor (2012) 0.00 
    0.002059945 = product of:
  0.00823978 = sum of:
    0.00823978 = product of:
      0.03295912 = sum of:
        0.03295912 = weight(_text_:based in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03295912 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.
  14. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000) 0.00 
    0.0017656671 = product of:
  0.0070626684 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance
  15. Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Interestingness and the essence of citation : Thomas Reid and bibliographic description (2013) 0.00 
    0.0017656671 = product of:
  0.0070626684 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to provide a new insight into the reasons why authors cite. Design/methodology/approach The authors argue that, based on philosophical ideas about the essence of things, pure rational thinking about the role of citations leads to the answer. Findings - Citations originate from the interestingness of the investigated phenomenon. The essence of citation lies in the interaction between different ideas or perspectives on a phenomenon addressed in the citing as well as in the cited articles. Research limitations/implications - The findings only apply to ethical (not whimsical or self-serving) citations. As such citations reflect interactions of scientific ideas, they can reveal the evolution of science, revive the cognitive process of an investigated scientific phenomenon and reveal political and economic factors influencing the development of science. Originality/value - This article is the first to propose interestingness and the interaction of ideas as the basic reason for citing. This view on citations allows reverse engineering from citations to ideas and hence becomes useful for science policy.
  16. Shi, D.; Rousseau, R.; Yang, L.; Li, J.: ¬A journal's impact factor is influenced by changes in publication delays of citing journals (2017) 0.00 
    0.0017656671 = product of:
  0.0070626684 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this article we describe another problem with journal impact factors by showing that one journal's impact factor is dependent on other journals' publication delays. The proposed theoretical model predicts a monotonically decreasing function of the impact factor as a function of publication delay, on condition that the citation curve of the journal is monotone increasing during the publication window used in the calculation of the journal impact factor; otherwise, this function has a reversed U shape. Our findings based on simulations are verified by examining three journals in the information sciences: the Journal of Informetrics, Scientometrics, and the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
  17. Hu, X.; Rousseau, R.: Do citation chimeras exist? : The case of under-cited influential articles suffering delayed recognition (2019) 0.00 
    0.0017656671 = product of:
  0.0070626684 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 5217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=5217,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 5217, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5217)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this study we investigate if articles suffering delayed recognition can at the same time be under-cited influential articles. Theoretically these two types of articles are independent, in the sense that suffering delayed recognition depends on the number and time distribution of received citations, while being an under-cited influential article depends only partially on the number of received (first generation) citations, and much more on second and third citation generations. Among 49 articles suffering delayed recognition we found 13 that are also under-cited influential. Based on a thorough investigation of these special cases we found that so-called authoritative citers play an important role in uniting the two different document types into a special citation chimera. Our investigation contributes to the classification of publications.
  18. Yang, B.; Rousseau, R.; Wang, X.; Huang, S.: How important is scientific software in bioinformatics research? : a comparative study between international and Chinese research communities (2018) 0.00 
    0.0014713892 = product of:
  0.005885557 = sum of:
    0.005885557 = product of:
      0.023542227 = sum of:
        0.023542227 = weight(_text_:based in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023542227 = score(doc=4461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 4461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4461)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Software programs are among the most important tools in data-driven research. The popularity of well-known packages and corresponding large numbers of citations received bear testimony of the contribution of scientific software to academic research. Yet software is not generally recognized as an academic outcome. In this study, a usage-based model is proposed with varied indicators including citations, mentions, and downloads to measure the importance of scientific software. We performed an investigation on a sample of international bioinformatics research articles, and on a sample from the Chinese community. Our analysis shows that scientists in the field of bioinformatics rely heavily on scientific software: the major differences between the international community and the Chinese example being how scientific packages are mentioned in publications and the time gap between the introduction of a package and its use. Biologists publishing in international journals tend to apply the latest tools earlier; Chinese scientists publishing in Chinese tend to follow later. Further, journals with higher impact factors tend to publish articles applying the latest tools earlier.

Authors

Years

Themes