Search (345 results, page 1 of 18)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Tscherteu, G.; Langreiter, C.: Explorative Netzwerkanalyse im Living Web (2009) 0.14 
    0.1432821 = product of:
  0.21492314 = sum of:
    0.09119617 = weight(_text_:web in 4870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09119617 = score(doc=4870,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 4870, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4870)
    0.123726964 = product of:
      0.24745393 = sum of:
        0.24745393 = weight(_text_:designer in 4870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24745393 = score(doc=4870,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36824805 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.602543 = idf(docFreq=59, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.6719762 = fieldWeight in 4870, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.602543 = idf(docFreq=59, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4870)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Die Zahl von Netzwerkakteuren steigt ebenso beständig wie die Menge an Inhalten, die von denselbigen produziert wird. Wir stellen visuell orientierte explorative Werkzeuge vor, die bisher unsichtbare Netzwerkprozesse und Zusammenhänge aus der Vogelperspektive darstellen sollen. Anhand unseres Projekts "MemeMapper" untersuchen wir weiters, wie wir als Designer und Entwickler dazu beitragen können, dass sich Nutzer effektiver informieren und an der Produktion von Inhalten in ihrem Netzwerk beteiligen können.
    Object
    Web 2.0
    Source
    Social Semantic Web: Web 2.0, was nun? Hrsg.: A. Blumauer u. T. Pellegrini
  2. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.07 
    0.07101844 = product of:
  0.106527664 = sum of:
    0.090121135 = weight(_text_:web in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090121135 = score(doc=586,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.016406527 = product of:
      0.032813054 = sum of:
        0.032813054 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032813054 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
  3. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.06 
    0.06120485 = product of:
  0.091807276 = sum of:
    0.07540075 = weight(_text_:web in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07540075 = score(doc=2352,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
    0.016406527 = product of:
      0.032813054 = sum of:
        0.032813054 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032813054 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
    Object
    Web of Science
  4. Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023) 0.06 
    0.05747604 = product of:
  0.08621406 = sum of:
    0.06980753 = weight(_text_:web in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06980753 = score(doc=992,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
    0.016406527 = product of:
      0.032813054 = sum of:
        0.032813054 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032813054 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:09:06
    Object
    Web of Science
  5. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.05 
    0.052614328 = product of:
  0.07892149 = sum of:
    0.059233658 = weight(_text_:web in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059233658 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
    0.01968783 = product of:
      0.03937566 = sum of:
        0.03937566 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03937566 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    "Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
    Object
    Web of Science
  6. Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014) 0.05 
    0.048375808 = product of:
  0.07256371 = sum of:
    0.049361378 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049361378 = score(doc=1291,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.023202332 = product of:
      0.046404663 = sum of:
        0.046404663 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046404663 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
    Object
    Web of Science
  7. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.05 
    0.048375808 = product of:
  0.07256371 = sum of:
    0.049361378 = weight(_text_:web in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049361378 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.023202332 = product of:
      0.046404663 = sum of:
        0.046404663 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046404663 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
  8. Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009) 0.05 
    0.045367938 = product of:
  0.068051904 = sum of:
    0.048364073 = weight(_text_:web in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048364073 = score(doc=2742,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
    0.01968783 = product of:
      0.03937566 = sum of:
        0.03937566 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03937566 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:49:11
  9. Stuart, D.: Web metrics for library and information professionals (2014) 0.04 
    0.042578995 = product of:
  0.12773699 = sum of:
    0.12773699 = weight(_text_:web in 2274) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12773699 = score(doc=2274,freq=82.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.808072 = fieldWeight in 2274, product of:
          9.055386 = tf(freq=82.0), with freq of:
            82.0 = termFreq=82.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2274)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This is a practical guide to using web metrics to measure impact and demonstrate value. The web provides an opportunity to collect a host of different metrics, from those associated with social media accounts and websites to more traditional research outputs. This book is a clear guide for library and information professionals as to what web metrics are available and how to assess and use them to make informed decisions and demonstrate value. As individuals and organizations increasingly use the web in addition to traditional publishing avenues and formats, this book provides the tools to unlock web metrics and evaluate the impact of this content. The key topics covered include: bibliometrics, webometrics and web metrics; data collection tools; evaluating impact on the web; evaluating social media impact; investigating relationships between actors; exploring traditional publications in a new environment; web metrics and the web of data; the future of web metrics and the library and information professional. The book will provide a practical introduction to web metrics for a wide range of library and information professionals, from the bibliometrician wanting to demonstrate the wider impact of a researcher's work than can be demonstrated through traditional citations databases, to the reference librarian wanting to measure how successfully they are engaging with their users on Twitter. It will be a valuable tool for anyone who wants to not only understand the impact of content, but demonstrate this impact to others within the organization and beyond.
    Content
    1. Introduction. MetricsIndicators -- Web metrics and Ranganathan's laws of library science -- Web metrics for the library and information professional -- The aim of this book -- The structure of the rest of this book -- 2. Bibliometrics, webometrics and web metrics. Web metrics -- Information science metrics -- Web analytics -- Relational and evaluative metrics -- Evaluative web metrics -- Relational web metrics -- Validating the results -- 3. Data collection tools. The anatomy of a URL, web links and the structure of the web -- Search engines 1.0 -- Web crawlers -- Search engines 2.0 -- Post search engine 2.0: fragmentation -- 4. Evaluating impact on the web. Websites -- Blogs -- Wikis -- Internal metrics -- External metrics -- A systematic approach to content analysis -- 5. Evaluating social media impact. Aspects of social network sites -- Typology of social network sites -- Research and tools for specific sites and services -- Other social network sites -- URL shorteners: web analytic links on any site -- General social media impact -- Sentiment analysis -- 6. Investigating relationships between actors. Social network analysis methods -- Sources for relational network analysis -- 7. Exploring traditional publications in a new environment. More bibliographic items -- Full text analysis -- Greater context -- 8. Web metrics and the web of data. The web of data -- Building the semantic web -- Implications of the web of data for web metrics -- Investigating the web of data today -- SPARQL -- Sindice -- LDSpider: an RDF web crawler -- 9. The future of web metrics and the library and information professional. How far we have come -- The future of web metrics -- The future of the library and information professional and web metrics.
    RSWK
    Bibliothek / World Wide Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Analyse / Statistik
    Bibliometrie / Semantic Web / Soziale Software
    Subject
    Bibliothek / World Wide Web / World Wide Web 2.0 / Analyse / Statistik
    Bibliometrie / Semantic Web / Soziale Software
  10. Neth, M.: Citation analysis and the Web (1998) 0.04 
    0.041911643 = product of:
  0.06286746 = sum of:
    0.03989833 = weight(_text_:web in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03989833 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
    0.022969136 = product of:
      0.045938272 = sum of:
        0.045938272 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045938272 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    10. 1.1999 16:22:37
  11. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.04 
    0.041911643 = product of:
  0.06286746 = sum of:
    0.03989833 = weight(_text_:web in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03989833 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
    0.022969136 = product of:
      0.045938272 = sum of:
        0.045938272 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045938272 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
  12. Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013) 0.04 
    0.041911643 = product of:
  0.06286746 = sum of:
    0.03989833 = weight(_text_:web in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03989833 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
    0.022969136 = product of:
      0.045938272 = sum of:
        0.045938272 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045938272 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In diesem Beitrag wird eine Publikationsanalyse von Beiträgen in von im Web of Science (WoS) indexierten bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften vorgestellt. Die Ergebnisse dieser Analyse bestätigen die anglo-amerikanische Dominanz in der facheinschlägigen Literatur, die bei den primär informationswissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften sogar noch deutlicher ausfällt. Die skandinavischen Länder und der Bereich der Szientometrie stellen gewisse Ausnahmen dar. Die internationale Sichtbarkeit Deutschlands und Österreichs ist hingegen "ausbaufähig".
    Date
    22. 3.2013 14:04:09
  13. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.04 
    0.04136091 = product of:
  0.062041365 = sum of:
    0.034198564 = weight(_text_:web in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034198564 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.0278428 = product of:
      0.0556856 = sum of:
        0.0556856 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0556856 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  14. Ingwersen, P.: ¬The calculation of Web impact factors (1998) 0.04 
    0.039898325 = product of:
  0.11969497 = sum of:
    0.11969497 = weight(_text_:web in 1071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11969497 = score(doc=1071,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.75719774 = fieldWeight in 1071, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1071)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Reports investigations into the feasibility and reliability of calculating impact factors for web sites, called Web Impact Factors (Web-IF). analyzes a selection of 7 small and medium scale national and 4 large web domains as well as 6 institutional web sites over a series of snapshots taken of the web during a month. Describes the data isolation and calculation methods and discusses the tests. The results thus far demonstrate that Web-IFs are calculable with high confidence for national and sector domains whilst institutional Web-IFs should be approached with caution
  15. Yang, S.; Han, R.; Ding, J.; Song, Y.: ¬The distribution of Web citations (2012) 0.04 
    0.039489105 = product of:
  0.118467316 = sum of:
    0.118467316 = weight(_text_:web in 2735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.118467316 = score(doc=2735,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.7494315 = fieldWeight in 2735, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2735)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A substantial amount of research has focused on the persistence or availability of Web citations. The present study analyzes Web citation distributions. Web citations are defined as the mentions of the URLs of Web pages (Web resources) as references in academic papers. The present paper primarily focuses on the analysis of the URLs of Web citations and uses three sets of data, namely, Set 1 from the Humanities and Social Science Index in China (CSSCI, 1998-2009), Set 2 from the publications of two international computer science societies, Communications of the ACM and IEEE Computer (1995-1999), and Set 3 from the medical science database, MEDLINE, of the National Library of Medicine (1994-2006). Web citation distributions are investigated based on Web site types, Web page types, URL frequencies, URL depths, URL lengths, and year of article publication. Results show significant differences in the Web citation distributions among the three data sets. However, when the URLs of Web citations with the same hostnames are aggregated, the distributions in the three data sets are consistent with the power law (the Lotka function).
  16. Koehler, W.: Web page change and persistence : a four-year longitudinal study (2002) 0.04 
    0.03780794 = product of:
  0.11342382 = sum of:
    0.11342382 = weight(_text_:web in 203) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11342382 = score(doc=203,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.717526 = fieldWeight in 203, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=203)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Changes in the topography of the Web can be expressed in at least four ways: (1) more sites on more servers in more places, (2) more pages and objects added to existing sites and pages, (3) changes in traffic, and (4) modifications to existing text, graphic, and other Web objects. This article does not address the first three factors (more sites, more pages, more traffic) in the growth of the Web. It focuses instead on changes to an existing set of Web documents. The article documents changes to an aging set of Web pages, first identified and "collected" in December 1996 and followed weekly thereafter. Results are reported through February 2001. The article addresses two related phenomena: (1) the life cycle of Web objects, and (2) changes to Web objects. These data reaffirm that the half-life of a Web page is approximately 2 years. There is variation among Web pages by top-level domain and by page type (navigation, content). Web page content appears to stabilize over time; aging pages change less often than once they did
  17. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.04 
    0.037806615 = product of:
  0.056709923 = sum of:
    0.040303398 = weight(_text_:web in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040303398 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
    0.016406527 = product of:
      0.032813054 = sum of:
        0.032813054 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032813054 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  18. Park, H.W.; Barnett, G.A.; Nam, I.-Y.: Hyperlink - affiliation network structure of top Web sites : examining affiliates with hyperlink in Korea (2002) 0.04 
    0.037616506 = product of:
  0.11284951 = sum of:
    0.11284951 = weight(_text_:web in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11284951 = score(doc=584,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.71389294 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article argues that individual Web sites form hyperlink-affiliations with others for the purpose of strengthening their individual trust, expertness, and safety. It describes the hyperlink-affiliation network structure of Korea's top 152 Web sites. The data were obtained from their Web sites for October 2000. The results indicate that financial Web sites, such as credit card and stock Web sites, occupy the most central position in the network. A cluster analysis reveals that the structure of the hyperlink-affiliation network is influenced by the financial Web sites with which others are affiliated. These findings are discussed from the perspective of Web site credibility.
  19. Impe, S. van; Rousseau, R.: Web-to-print citations and the humanities (2006) 0.04 
    0.036048457 = product of:
  0.10814536 = sum of:
    0.10814536 = weight(_text_:web in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10814536 = score(doc=82,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.6841342 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    References to printed documents made on the web are called web-to-print references. These printed documents then in turn receive web-to-print citations. Webto-print citations and web-to-print references are the topic of this article, in which we study the online impact of printed sources. Web-to-print citations are discussed from a structural point of view and a small-scale experiment related to web-to-print citations for local history journals is performed. The main research question in setting up this experiment concerns the possibility of using web-to-print citations as a substitute for classical citation indexes by gauging the importance, visibility and impact of journals in the humanities. Results show the importance of web bibliographies in the field, but, at least for what concerns the journals and the period studied here, the amount of received web-to-print citations is too small to draw general conclusions.
  20. He, Z.-L.: International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority (2009) 0.04 
    0.035924263 = product of:
  0.05388639 = sum of:
    0.034198564 = weight(_text_:web in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034198564 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15807624 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.048437484 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
    0.01968783 = product of:
      0.03937566 = sum of:
        0.03937566 = weight(_text_:22 in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03937566 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961981 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.048437484 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The consistent finding that internationally coauthored papers are more heavily cited has led to a tacit agreement among politicians and scientists that international collaboration in scientific research should be particularly promoted. However, existing studies of research collaboration suffer from a major weakness in that the Thomson Reuters Web of Science until recently did not link author names with affiliation addresses. The general approach has been to hierarchically code papers into international paper, national paper, or local paper based on the address information. This hierarchical coding scheme severely understates the level and contribution of local or national collaboration on an internationally coauthored paper. In this research, I code collaboration variables by hand checking each paper in the sample, use two measures of a paper's impact, and try several regression models. I find that both international collaboration and local collaboration are positively and significantly associated with a paper's impact, but international collaboration does not have more epistemic authority than local collaboration. This result suggests that previous findings based on hierarchical coding might be misleading.
    Date
    26. 9.2009 11:22:05

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 323
  • d 20
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 337
  • el 6
  • m 6
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications