Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google book search : citation analysis for social science and the humanities (2009) 0.03 
    0.029559745 = product of:
  0.14779872 = sum of:
    0.14779872 = weight(_text_:books in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14779872 = score(doc=2946,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.5970138 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.
    Object
    Google books
  2. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.022207877 = product of:
  0.111039385 = sum of:
    0.111039385 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.111039385 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  3. Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The J-shaped distribution of citedness (2002) 0.02 
    0.021151232 = product of:
  0.105756156 = sum of:
    0.105756156 = weight(_text_:books in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105756156 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.42718828 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J-shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.
  4. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.019629175 = product of:
  0.09814587 = sum of:
    0.09814587 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09814587 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  5. White, H.D.; Boell, S.K.; Yu, H.; Davis, M.; Wilson, C.S.; Cole, F.T.H.: Libcitations : a measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences (2009) 0.02 
    0.018695224 = product of:
  0.09347612 = sum of:
    0.09347612 = weight(_text_:books in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09347612 = score(doc=2846,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37758467 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.
  6. Brooks, T.: Citer motivations (2009) 0.02 
    0.018507326 = product of:
  0.09253663 = sum of:
    0.09253663 = weight(_text_:books in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09253663 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.37378973 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Much informetric research is based on the analysis of the citations that authors make to the publications of other scholars and researchers, whose work they have used in their own articles and books. If such measures are to be useful for understanding scientific recognition and the ways in which scientific results build on earlier work, then an understanding of the motivations of the people doing the citing can be helpful in evaluating the validity of the research based on the citation analysis.
  7. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.02 
    0.016655907 = product of:
  0.083279535 = sum of:
    0.083279535 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083279535 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  8. Haridasan, S.; Kulshrestha, V.K.: Citation analysis of scholarly communication in the journal Knowledge Organization (2007) 0.01 
    0.014956179 = product of:
  0.0747809 = sum of:
    0.0747809 = weight(_text_:books in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0747809 = score(doc=863,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30206773 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Citation analysis is one of the popular methods employed for identification of core documents and complex relationship between citing and cited documents for a particular scholarly community in a geographical proximity. The present citation study is to understand the information needs, use pattern and use behaviour of library and information science researchers particularly engaged in the field of knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - The data relating to all the references appended to the articles during the period under study were collected and tabulated. Findings - Citation analysis of the journal for the period under study reveals that the average number of citations is around 21 per article. The major source of information is books and documents published during the later half of the century (1982-91). Authors from the USA, UK and Germany are the major contributors to the journal. India is ranked seventh in terms of contributions. Research limitations/implications - The study undertaken is limited to nine years, i.e. 1993-2001. The model citation index of the journal is analyzed using the first seven core authors. Practical implications - Ranking of periodicals helps to identify the core periodicals cited in the journal Knowledge Organization. Ranking of authors is done to know the eminent personalities in the subject, whose work is used by the authors to refine their ideas on the subject or topic. Originality/value - Model Citation Index for the first seven most cited authors was worked out and it reveals the historical relationship of cited and citing documents. This model citation index can be used to identify, the most cited authors as researchers currently working on special problems, to determine whether a paper has been cited, whether there has been a review of a subject, whether a concept has been applied, a theory confirmed or a method improved.
    Content
    Vgl..: Burton, P.F.: On reading "The banning of books in libraries". In: Library review. 56(2007) no.3, S.197-199.
  9. Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006) 0.01 
    0.011777506 = product of:
  0.05888753 = sum of:
    0.05888753 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05888753 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, 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=5275)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:20:22
  10. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.011777506 = product of:
  0.05888753 = sum of:
    0.05888753 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05888753 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  11. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.01 
    0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
  12. Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007) 0.01 
    0.011103938 = product of:
  0.055519693 = sum of:
    0.055519693 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055519693 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    30.12.2007 11:22:39
  13. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.01 
    0.009814587 = product of:
  0.049072936 = sum of:
    0.049072936 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049072936 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 12:43:51
  14. Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003) 0.01 
    0.009715946 = product of:
  0.04857973 = sum of:
    0.04857973 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04857973 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    29. 3.2003 19:22:48
  15. Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003) 0.01 
    0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    6.11.2005 19:02:22
  16. Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006) 0.01 
    0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:26:24
  17. Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004) 0.01 
    0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01 
    0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  19. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  20. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01 
    0.0083279535 = product of:
  0.041639768 = sum of:
    0.041639768 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041639768 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05

Authors

Languages

  • e 32
  • d 5

Types

  • a 37
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes