Search (100 results, page 1 of 5)

0.10186547 = product of:
  0.20373094 = sum of:
    0.09581695 = weight(_text_:term in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09581695 = score(doc=5768,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.4374403 = fieldWeight in 5768, 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=5768)
    0.107914 = weight(_text_:frequency in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107914 = score(doc=5768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.39037234 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A citation analysis of undergraduate term papers in microeconomics revealed a significant decrease in the frequency of scholarly resources cited between 1996 and 1999. Book citations decreased from 30% to 19%, newspaper citations increased from 7% to 19%, and Web citations increased from 9% to 21%. Web citations checked in 2000 revealed that only 18% of URLs cited in 1996 led to the correct Internet document. For 1999 bibliographies, only 55% of URLs led to the correct document. The authors recommend (1) setting stricter guidelines for acceptable citations in course assignments; (2) creating and maintaining scholarly portals for authoritative Web sites with a commitment to long-term access; and (3) continuing to instruct students how to critically evaluate resources

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

0.06387796 = product of:
  0.25551185 = sum of:
    0.25551185 = weight(_text_:term in 1852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25551185 = score(doc=1852,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        1.1665075 = fieldWeight in 1852, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1852)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.050061207 = product of:
  0.100122415 = sum of:
    0.010194084 = product of:
      0.040776335 = sum of:
        0.040776335 = weight(_text_:based in 1013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040776335 = score(doc=1013,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 1013, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1013)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.08992833 = weight(_text_:frequency in 1013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08992833 = score(doc=1013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.32531026 = fieldWeight in 1013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1013)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper proposes a new approach to create a patent classification system to replace the IPC or UPC system for conducting patent analysis and management. The new approach is based on co-citation analysis of bibliometrics. The traditional approach for management of patents, which is based on either the IPC or UPC, is too general to meet the needs of specific industries. In addition, some patents are placed in incorrect categories, making it difficult for enterprises to carry out R&D planning, technology positioning, patent strategy-making and technology forecasting. Therefore, it is essential to develop a patent classification system that is adaptive to the characteristics of a specific industry. The analysis of this approach is divided into three phases. Phase I selects appropriate databases to conduct patent searches according to the subject and objective of this study and then select basic patents. Phase II uses the co-cited frequency of the basic patent pairs to assess their similarity. Phase III uses factor analysis to establish a classification system and assess the efficiency of the proposed approach. The main contribution of this approach is to develop a patent classification system based on patent similarities to assist patent manager in understanding the basic patents for a specific industry, the relationships among categories of technologies and the evolution of a technology category.

0.04516854 = product of:
  0.18067417 = sum of:
    0.18067417 = weight(_text_:term in 5656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18067417 = score(doc=5656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.8248453 = fieldWeight in 5656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5656)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.038390413 = product of:
  0.076780826 = sum of:
    0.008323434 = product of:
      0.033293735 = sum of:
        0.033293735 = weight(_text_:based in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033293735 = score(doc=1900,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 1900, 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=1900)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.068457395 = product of:
      0.13691479 = sum of:
        0.13691479 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13691479 = score(doc=1900,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.5282689 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.

0.03632756 = product of:
  0.07265512 = sum of:
    0.009416891 = product of:
      0.037667565 = sum of:
        0.037667565 = weight(_text_:based in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037667565 = score(doc=4842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 4842, 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=4842)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.063238226 = product of:
      0.12647645 = sum of:
        0.12647645 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12647645 = score(doc=4842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.4879938 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Fortsetzung von pt.1: experimental retrieval results are presented as a function of the exhaustivity and similarity of the composite representations and reveal consistent patterns from which optimal performance levels can be identified. The optimal performance values provide an assessment of the absolute capacity of each composite representation to associate documents relevant to different queries in single-link hierarchies. The effectiveness of the exhaustive representation composed of references and citations is materially superior to the effectiveness of exhaustive composite representations that include subject descriptions

0.03632756 = product of:
  0.07265512 = sum of:
    0.009416891 = product of:
      0.037667565 = sum of:
        0.037667565 = weight(_text_:based in 6673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037667565 = score(doc=6673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 6673, 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=6673)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.063238226 = product of:
      0.12647645 = sum of:
        0.12647645 = weight(_text_:assessment in 6673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12647645 = score(doc=6673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.4879938 = fieldWeight in 6673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Citations are used to illustrate or elaborate on a point, or to criticize. Citation studies, based on ISI's citation indexes, can help evaluate scientific research, while impact factors aid libraries in deciding which journals to cancel or purchase. Suggests that citiation counts can replace the costly RAE in assessing the research output of university departments

0.035971332 = product of:
  0.14388533 = sum of:
    0.14388533 = weight(_text_:frequency in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14388533 = score(doc=175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.5204964 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Examines non-indexed indirect collective citedness (NIICC), through a study of 621 articles from 1969 volumes of 2 physics journals, in order to establish the frequency of the phenomenon in the research material. Findings refute the representativity ofd the citation indexes in the field of citedness in the scientific journal literature during the science history period of early Big Science as NIICC was found to be widespread

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.

0.031794466 = product of:
  0.12717786 = sum of:
    0.12717786 = weight(_text_:frequency in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12717786 = score(doc=61,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.46005818 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subject-search retrieval by broadening and prioritizing the results. Subjects attached to records representing cited works are compared to subjects attached to records representing the original citing sources, and to the subjects yielded by chasing see-also references from the latter group of headings. Original citing sources were yielded via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the subject heading "Language and languages - Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked first by number of citations from original sources, then by total citation-frequency. The results were tiered into 4 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. A similar rank and division was performed on the subjects representing the original citing sources, and those yielded by chasing see-also references. Both in terms of subject frequency and topic type, positive comparisons between citation chasing and see-also references show a confirmation of different methods of yielding alternative subjects. Exclusive results suggest potential mutual complementary value among these different methods.

0.031474918 = product of:
  0.12589967 = sum of:
    0.12589967 = weight(_text_:frequency in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12589967 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.45543438 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing

0.031474918 = product of:
  0.12589967 = sum of:
    0.12589967 = weight(_text_:frequency in 3003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12589967 = score(doc=3003,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.45543438 = fieldWeight in 3003, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3003)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.027946608 = product of:
  0.11178643 = sum of:
    0.11178643 = weight(_text_:term in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11178643 = score(doc=165,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21904005 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.510347 = fieldWeight in 165, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.66603 = idf(docFreq=1130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=165)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The use of citation counts to assess the impact of research articles is well established. However, the citation impact of an article can only be measured several years after it has been published. As research articles are increasingly accessed through the Web, the number of times an article is downloaded can be instantly recorded and counted. One would expect the number of times an article is read to be related both to the number of times it is cited and to how old the article is. The authors analyze how short-term Web usage impact predicts medium-term citation impact. The physics e-print archive-arXiv.org-is used to test this.

0.027245669 = product of:
  0.054491337 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 3376, 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=3376)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.047428668 = product of:
      0.094857335 = sum of:
        0.094857335 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094857335 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 3376, 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=3376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector

0.027245669 = product of:
  0.054491337 = sum of:
    0.0070626684 = product of:
      0.028250674 = sum of:
        0.028250674 = weight(_text_:based in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028250674 = score(doc=3467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 3467, 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=3467)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    0.047428668 = product of:
      0.094857335 = sum of:
        0.094857335 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094857335 = score(doc=3467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25917634 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 3467, 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=3467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The journal impact factors, published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI; Philadelphia, PA), are widely known and are used to evaluate overall journal quality and the quality of the papers published therein. However, when making comparisons between subject fields, the work of individual scientists and their research institutions as reflected in their articles' ISI impact factors can become meaningless. This inequality will remain as long as ISI impact factors are employed as an instrument to assess the quality of international research. Here we propose a new mathematical index entitled Impact Factor PointAverage (IFPA) for assessment of the quality of individual research work in different subject fields. The index is established based an a normalization of differences in impact factors, rankings, and number of journal titles in different subject fields. The proposed index is simple and enables the ISI impact factors to be used with equality, especially when evaluating the quality of research work in different subject fields.

0.0269785 = product of:
  0.107914 = sum of:
    0.107914 = weight(_text_:frequency in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107914 = score(doc=4298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.39037234 = fieldWeight in 4298, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4298)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Indirect collective referencing (ICR) is a special kind of indirect referencing, in an act making reference to all references cited in a directly cited paper. In this research the literature phenomenon of ICR is defined in the narrowest sense, taking into account only its indisputable minimum. To reveal the life course of this phenomenon, a longitudinal section was taken in the representative elite general physics journal, The Physical Review, processing more than 4.200 journal papers from 1897 to 1997 and their close to 84.00 formal references. This investigation showed that the ICR phenomenon has existed in the journal for a century now; that the frequency and intensity of the phenomenon have been constantly increasing in both absolute and relative terms since the last, mature period of the Little Science age; and that this growth has accelerated in the publication explosion of the Big Science age. It was shown that the Citation Indexes show only a fraction of the really cited references in the journal

0.0269785 = product of:
  0.107914 = sum of:
    0.107914 = weight(_text_:frequency in 4592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107914 = score(doc=4592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.39037234 = fieldWeight in 4592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4592)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research has been identified as a critical means of addressing some of our planet's most urgent environmental problems. Yet relatively little is known about the processes and impact of interdisciplinary approaches to environmental sciences. This study used citation analysis and ordinary least squares regression to investigate the relationship between an article's citation rate and its degree of interdisciplinarity in one area of environmental science; viz., forestry. 3 types of interdisciplinarity were recognized - authorspip, subject matter, and cited literature - and each was quantified using Brillouin's diversity index. Data consisted of more than 750 articles published in the journal 'Forest Science' during the 10year period 1985-1994. The results indicate that borrowing was the most influencial method of interdisciplinary information transfer. Articles that drew information from a diverse set of journals were cited with greater frequency than articles having smaller or more narrowly focused bibliographies. This finding provides empirical evidence that interdisciplinary methods have made a measurable and positive impact on the forestry literature

0.0269785 = product of:
  0.107914 = sum of:
    0.107914 = weight(_text_:frequency in 5061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.107914 = score(doc=5061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.39037234 = fieldWeight in 5061, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5061)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) provides a new method of locating potentially relevant articles on a given subject by identifying subsequent articles that cite a previously published article. An important feature of Google Scholar is that researchers can use it to trace interconnections among authors citing articles on the same topic and to determine the frequency with which others cite a specific article, as it has a "cited by" feature. This study begins with an overview of how to use Google Scholar for citation analysis and identifies advanced search techniques not well documented by Google Scholar. This study also compares the citation counts provided by Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles in the field of "Webometrics." It makes several suggestions for improving Google Scholar. Finally, it concludes that Google Scholar provides a free alternative or complement to other citation indexes.

0.025435572 = product of:
  0.10174229 = sum of:
    0.10174229 = weight(_text_:frequency in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10174229 = score(doc=180,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.27643865 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04694356 = queryNorm
        0.36804655 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.888745 = idf(docFreq=332, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the author's three previous articles dealing with the ICR phenomenon (JASIS, 49, 1998, 477-481; 50, 1999, 1284-1294; JASIST, 52, 2001, 201-211) the nature, life course, and importance of this phenomenon of scientific literature was demonstrated. It was shown that the quantity of nonindexed indirect-collective references in The Physical Review now alone exceeds many times over the quantity of formal references listed in the Science Citation Index as "citations." It was shown that the ICR phenomenon is present in all the 44 elite physics journals of a representative sample of this literature. The bibliometrically very heterogeneous sample is very homogeneous regarding the presence and frequency of the ICR phenomenon. However, no real connection could be found between the simple degree of documentedness and the presence and frequency of the ICR phenomenon on the journal level of the sample. The present article reports the findings of the latest ICR investigation carried out on the level of communications of the representative sample. Correlation calculations were carried out in the stock of all 458 communications containing the ICR phenomenon as a statistical population, and within this population also in the groups of communications of the "normal" and the "letter" journals, and the "short communications." The correlation analysis did not find notable statistical correlation between the simple and specific degree of documentedness of a communication and the number of works cited in it by ICR act(s) either in the total population or in the selected groups. There is no correlation either statistical or real (i.e., cause-and-effect) between the documentedness of scientific communications made by their authors and the presence and intensity of the ICR method used by their authors. However, in reality there exists a very strong connection between these two statistically independent variables: both depend on the referencing author, on his/her subjectivity and barely limited subjective free will. This subjective free will shapes the stock of the formal-direct references of scientific communications, thereby placing the achievements cited in this way and their creators into the (indexed) showcase of present Big Science. The same free will decides on the use or nonuse of the ICR method, and in the case of use also on the intensity with which the method is used