Search (177 results, page 1 of 9)

0.09527188 = product of:
  0.19054376 = sum of:
    0.19054376 = sum of:
      0.16286184 = weight(_text_:core in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16286184 = score(doc=3271,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.6313121 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
      0.02768192 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02768192 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.

Date

20. 3.2005 10:54:22

0.07460449 = product of:
  0.14920898 = sum of:
    0.14920898 = sum of:
      0.10076562 = weight(_text_:core in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10076562 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.39060444 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.04844336 = weight(_text_:22 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04844336 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of the literature of Qigong: a relaxation technique used to teach patients to control their heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and other involuntary functions through controlles breathing. All articles indexed in the MEDLINE CD-ROM database, between 1965 and 1995 were identified using 'breathing exercises' MeSH term. The articles were analyzed for geographical and language distribution and a ranking exercise enabled a core list of periodicals to be identified. In addition, the study shed light on the changing frequency of the MeSH terms and evaluated the research areas by measuring the information from these respective MeSH headings

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.38-44

0.06819552 = product of:
  0.13639104 = sum of:
    0.13639104 = sum of:
      0.10178865 = weight(_text_:core in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10178865 = score(doc=4150,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.39457005 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
      0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0346024 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.06394671 = product of:
  0.12789342 = sum of:
    0.12789342 = sum of:
      0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086370535 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
      0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04152288 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:05:07

0.06394671 = product of:
  0.12789342 = sum of:
    0.12789342 = sum of:
      0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086370535 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04152288 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:11:29

0.06045531 = product of:
  0.12091062 = sum of:
    0.12091062 = sum of:
      0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07197544 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.048935182 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048935182 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = 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)

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

0.057580356 = product of:
  0.11516071 = sum of:
    0.11516071 = product of:
      0.23032142 = sum of:
        0.23032142 = weight(_text_:core in 5122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23032142 = score(doc=5122,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.8928101 = fieldWeight in 5122, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes a simple method for developing a list of core serials in a particular subject field by analysing article citations in electronic indexes. The Simple Index Method overcomes the difficulties in building a core list for serials in interdisciplinary fields by using multiple indexes which cover various aspects of the subject. This method permits the collection development librarian to develop a core list when standard bibliographies or specific indexing and abstracting tools are lacking and to tailor that list to the needs of the local situation

0.05328892 = product of:
  0.10657784 = sum of:
    0.10657784 = sum of:
      0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07197544 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
      0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0346024 = score(doc=2743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2743, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2743)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we performed a comparative study to investigate the performance of methods for detecting emerging research fronts. Three types of citation network, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation, were tested in three research domains, gallium nitride (GaN), complex network (CNW), and carbon nanotube (CNT). Three types of citation network were constructed for each research domain, and the papers in those domains were divided into clusters to detect the research front. We evaluated the performance of each type of citation network in detecting a research front by using the following measures of papers in the cluster: visibility, measured by normalized cluster size, speed, measured by average publication year, and topological relevance, measured by density. Direct citation, which could detect large and young emerging clusters earlier, shows the best performance in detecting a research front, and co-citation shows the worst. Additionally, in direct citation networks, the clustering coefficient was the largest, which suggests that the content similarity of papers connected by direct citations is the greatest and that direct citation networks have the least risk of missing emerging research domains because core papers are included in the largest component.

Date

22. 3.2009 17:52:50

0.05038281 = product of:
  0.10076562 = sum of:
    0.10076562 = product of:
      0.20153125 = sum of:
        0.20153125 = weight(_text_:core in 6094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20153125 = score(doc=6094,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.7812089 = fieldWeight in 6094, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6094)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.049866054 = product of:
  0.09973211 = sum of:
    0.09973211 = product of:
      0.19946422 = sum of:
        0.19946422 = weight(_text_:core in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19946422 = score(doc=5066,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.7731963 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bradford's law of scatter was applied to the analysis of the authors of source documents on the subject of classification schemes, published in core periodicals over the period 1981-1990. Results indicated that: core authors of the international classification system literature are Library of Congress, M. Dewey, S. Ranganathan, J. Comaroni, A. Neelameghan, L. Chan and K. Markey; the highly cited authors are linked either to the developers of the classification schemes or to a research centre, or else they authored the most frequently cited books; and the data conforms to Bradford's Law of Scatter

0.047607284 = product of:
  0.09521457 = sum of:
    0.09521457 = product of:
      0.19042914 = sum of:
        0.19042914 = weight(_text_:core in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19042914 = score(doc=2861,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.738173 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs number of publications (for the quantity dimension) and total citation counts (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between number of publications and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between total citation counts and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.

0.04071546 = product of:
  0.08143092 = sum of:
    0.08143092 = product of:
      0.16286184 = sum of:
        0.16286184 = weight(_text_:core in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16286184 = score(doc=3313,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.6313121 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The g-index is discussed in terms of the average number of citations of the publications in the g-core, showing that it combines features of the h-index and the A-index in one number. For a visualization, data of 8 famous physicists are presented and analyzed. In comparison with the h-index, the g-index increases between 67% and 144%, on average by a factor of 2.

0.03739954 = product of:
  0.07479908 = sum of:
    0.07479908 = product of:
      0.14959817 = sum of:
        0.14959817 = weight(_text_:core in 6643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14959817 = score(doc=6643,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.5798972 = fieldWeight in 6643, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6643)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper we continue our investigation of the micro-structure of the Matthew effect for countries (MEC). After the recent identification of a new type of scientific journal, the Matthew core journal (MCJ), we study the relations of MCJ to other types of core journals - publication, citation, and participation core journals. 144 MCJ out of 2712 SCI-journals in our sample account for half of the MEC. A typology of the MCJ can be established. The exclusive role of the MCJ consists in carrying a high number of Matthew citations due to the competition of many countries for a high impact of their papers. The research fronts in science are "boiling" in the MCJ. The 144 MCJ are sufficient to construct a country rank distribution that reflects world science performance

0.03739954 = product of:
  0.07479908 = sum of:
    0.07479908 = product of:
      0.14959817 = sum of:
        0.14959817 = weight(_text_:core in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14959817 = score(doc=928,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.5798972 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper evaluates the content of Google Scholar and seven other databases (Academic Search Elite, AgeLine, ArticleFirst, GEOBASE, POPLINE, Social Sciences Abstracts, and Social Sciences Citation Index) within the multidisciplinary subject area of later-life migration. Each database is evaluated with reference to a set of 155 core articles selected in advance-the most important studies of later-life migration published from 1990 to 2000. Of the eight databases, Google Scholar indexes the greatest number of core articles (93%) and provides the most uniform publisher and date coverage. It covers 27% more core articles than the second-ranked database (SSCI) and 2.4 times as many as the lowest-ranked database (GEOBASE). At the same time, a substantial proportion of the citations provided by Google Scholar are incomplete (32%) or presented without abstracts (33%).

0.037302244 = product of:
  0.07460449 = sum of:
    0.07460449 = sum of:
      0.05038281 = weight(_text_:core in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05038281 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.19530222 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
      0.02422168 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02422168 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.035626028 = product of:
  0.071252055 = sum of:
    0.071252055 = product of:
      0.14250411 = sum of:
        0.14250411 = weight(_text_:core in 5070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14250411 = score(doc=5070,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.5523981 = fieldWeight in 5070, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5070)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

By analyzing the source documents and their references by classification systems researchers in the world, this paper presents core journals of the field during the period 1981-1990. The findings show that journal literature in this study confirms to Bradford's law and provides 'Cataloging and classification quarterly (CCQ)' as the most productive journbal, 'Library resources and technical services (LRTS)' as the most frequently cited journal of the field and 'Knowledge organization (KO)', formerly 'International classification (IC)' as the second productive and frequently cited journal of the field. The principal journals publishing source items differs from those used as reference sources of the field. The high-ranked international journals over the years are clearly those to be acquired to obtain the greatest coverage of the field for the least cost

0.035626028 = product of:
  0.071252055 = sum of:
    0.071252055 = product of:
      0.14250411 = sum of:
        0.14250411 = weight(_text_:core in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14250411 = score(doc=785,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.5523981 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes a study using citation analysis to select journals that could be used in the veterinary medical field. The study determines the principal journals to which a veterinary medical library should subscribe, thus obtaining the highest possible utility of materials. By using a database of 105 journals for a period of five years (1982-86), citation data were applied on the Bradford bibliography and Bradford-Zipf distribution to determine the ranking of journals in the field and the "core journals". Reports the results of the study which discovered that the Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa is the most cited journal with 305 citations, and the core journals were eight in number, having 1,067 citations representing 66.2 per cent of the total citations.

0.035626028 = product of:
  0.071252055 = sum of:
    0.071252055 = product of:
      0.14250411 = sum of:
        0.14250411 = weight(_text_:core in 1821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14250411 = score(doc=1821,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.5523981 = fieldWeight in 1821, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1821)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Applying a recently developed method for measuring the level of specialization over time for a selection of library and information science (LIS)-core journals seems to reveal that Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) is slowly transforming into a specialty journal. The transformation seems to originate from a growing interest in bibliometric topics. This is evident from a longitudinal study (1990-2012) of the bibliometric coupling strength between Scientometrics and other LIS-core journals (including JASIST). The cause of this gradual transformation is discussed, and possible explanations are analyzed.

0.031166283 = product of:
  0.062332567 = sum of:
    0.062332567 = product of:
      0.12466513 = sum of:
        0.12466513 = weight(_text_:core in 3041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12466513 = score(doc=3041,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.48324767 = fieldWeight in 3041, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The diversity of bibliometric indices today poses the challenge of exploiting the relationships among them. Our research uncovers the best core set of relevant indices for predicting other bibliometric indices. An added difficulty is to select the role of each variable, that is, which bibliometric indices are predictive variables and which are response variables. This results in a novel multioutput regression problem where the role of each variable (predictor or response) is unknown beforehand. We use Gaussian Bayesian networks to solve the this problem and discover multivariate relationships among bibliometric indices. These networks are learnt by a genetic algorithm that looks for the optimal models that best predict bibliometric data. Results show that the optimal induced Gaussian Bayesian networks corroborate previous relationships between several indices, but also suggest new, previously unreported interactions. An extended analysis of the best model illustrates that a set of 12 bibliometric indices can be accurately predicted using only a smaller predictive core subset composed of citations, g-index, q2-index, and hr-index. This research is performed using bibliometric data on Spanish full professors associated with the computer science area.

0.031166283 = product of:
  0.062332567 = sum of:
    0.062332567 = product of:
      0.12466513 = sum of:
        0.12466513 = weight(_text_:core in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12466513 = score(doc=3329,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.48324767 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The publication performance of 30 scientometricians is studied. The individuals are classified into 3 cohorts according to their manifested professional recognition, as Price medalists (Pm), members of the editorial board of Scientometrics and the Journal of Informetrics (Rw), and session chairs (Sc) at an International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) conference. Several core impact indicators are calculated: h, g, p, citation distribution score (CDS), percentage rank position (PRP), and weight of influence of papers (WIP10). The indices significantly correlate with each other. The mean value of the indices of the cohorts decreases parallel with the decrease in professional recognition: Pm?>?Rw?>?Sc. The 30 scientometricians studied were clustered according to the core impact indices. The members in the clusters so obtained overlap only partly with the members in the cohorts made by professional recognition. The Total Overlap is calculated by dividing the sum of the diagonal elements in the cohorts-clusters matrix with the total number of elements, times 100. The highest overlap (76.6%) was obtained with the g-index. Accordingly, the g-index seems to have the greatest discriminative power in the system studied. The cohorts-clusters method may be used for validating scientometric indicators.