Search (35 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01 
    0.012256979 = product of:
  0.024513958 = sum of:
    0.024513958 = product of:
      0.049027916 = sum of:
        0.049027916 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049027916 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  2. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01 
    0.012256979 = product of:
  0.024513958 = sum of:
    0.024513958 = product of:
      0.049027916 = sum of:
        0.049027916 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049027916 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  3. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01 
    0.012256979 = product of:
  0.024513958 = sum of:
    0.024513958 = product of:
      0.049027916 = sum of:
        0.049027916 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049027916 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  4. Stock, W.G.: Forschung im internationalen Vergleich - Wissenschaftsindikatoren auf Zitationsbasis : ISI Essential Science Indicators (2002) 0.01 
    0.011724652 = product of:
  0.023449304 = sum of:
    0.023449304 = product of:
      0.046898607 = sum of:
        0.046898607 = weight(_text_:2000 in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046898607 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.22386816 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Forschungsergebnisse aus einer elektronischen Datenbank heraus? Rangordnungen der wichtigsten Institutionen, Wissenschaftler, Zeitschriften und sogar Länder in Fachdisziplinen nach Einfluss? Markierung "heißer", hochaktueller Artikel? Auflisten der hochzitierten Forschungsfronten in den einzelnen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen? Und das alles auf Knopfdruck und nicht mittels umständlicher szientometrischer Verfahren? Geht so etwas überhaupt? Es geht. Mit den "Essential Science Indicators" (ESI) legt das ISl ein webbasiertes Informationssystem zur Wissenschaftsevaluation vor, das einzigartige Ergebnisse präsentiert und in der Tat ausgesprochen einfach zu bedienen ist. Aber es geht, verglichen mit ausgeklügelten Methoden der empirischen Wissenschaftsforschung, nicht alles. Wo liegen die Grenzen des Systems? Wir werden die Arbeitsweise der ESI, seine Datenbasis, die eingesetzten informetrischen Algorithmen - und deren methodischen Probleme, die Suchoberfläche sowie die Ergebnisdarstellung skizzieren. Als Beispiel dienen uns Aspekte deutscher Forschung. Etwa: In welcher Disziplin haben Deutschlands Forscher den größten internationalen Einfluss? Welches deutsche Institut der Neurowissenschaften kann aufglobaler Ebene mitmischen? Oder: Welcher in Deutschland tätige Wissenschaftler führt eine disziplinspezifische Rangordnung an?Letztlich: Wer braucht die "Essential Science Indicators"? - Wir testeten die Essential Science Indicators Mitte Februar 2002 anhand der Version vom 1. Januar 2002, die das Zehn-Jahres-Intervall 1991 bis 2000 sowie die ersten zehn Monate aus 2001 berücksichtigt.
  5. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.01 
    0.011724652 = product of:
  0.023449304 = sum of:
    0.023449304 = product of:
      0.046898607 = sum of:
        0.046898607 = weight(_text_:2000 in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046898607 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.22386816 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
  6. Johnson, B.; Oppenheim, C.: How socially connected are citers to those that they cite? (2007) 0.01 
    0.011724652 = product of:
  0.023449304 = sum of:
    0.023449304 = product of:
      0.046898607 = sum of:
        0.046898607 = weight(_text_:2000 in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046898607 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.22386816 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the social and citation networks of three information scientists: David Nicholas, Peter Williams and Paul Huntington. Design/methodology/approach - Similarities between citation patterns and social closeness were identified and discussed. A total of 16 individuals in the citation network were identified and investigated using citation analysis, and a matrix formed of citations made between those in the network. Social connections between the 16 in the citation network were then investigated by means of a questionnaire, the results of which were merged into a separate matrix. These matrices were converted into visual social networks, using multidimensional scaling. A new deviance measure was devised for drawing comparisons between social and citation closeness in individual cases. Findings - Nicholas, Williams and Huntington were found to have cited 527 authors in the period 2000-2003, the 16 most cited becoming the subjects of further citation and social investigation. This comparison, along with the examination of visual representations indicates a positive correlation between social closeness and citation counts. Possible explanations for this correlation are discussed, and implications considered. Despite this correlation, the information scientists were found to cite widely outside their immediate social connections. Originality/value - Social network analysis has not been often used in combination with citation analysis to explore inter-relationships in research teams.
  7. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.01 
    0.010505982 = product of:
  0.021011963 = sum of:
    0.021011963 = product of:
      0.042023927 = sum of:
        0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042023927 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
  8. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.01 
    0.010505982 = product of:
  0.021011963 = sum of:
    0.021011963 = product of:
      0.042023927 = sum of:
        0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042023927 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  9. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.01 
    0.010505982 = product of:
  0.021011963 = sum of:
    0.021011963 = product of:
      0.042023927 = sum of:
        0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042023927 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
  10. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.010505982 = product of:
  0.021011963 = sum of:
    0.021011963 = product of:
      0.042023927 = sum of:
        0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042023927 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  11. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01 
    0.010505982 = product of:
  0.021011963 = sum of:
    0.021011963 = product of:
      0.042023927 = sum of:
        0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042023927 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  12. Ding, Y.; Zhang, G.; Chambers, T.; Song, M.; Wang, X.; Zhai, C.: Content-based citation analysis : the next generation of citation analysis (2014) 0.01 
    0.010505982 = product of:
  0.021011963 = sum of:
    0.021011963 = product of:
      0.042023927 = sum of:
        0.042023927 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042023927 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 16:52:04
  13. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.01 
    0.008754985 = product of:
  0.01750997 = sum of:
    0.01750997 = product of:
      0.03501994 = sum of:
        0.03501994 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03501994 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  14. Wildner, B.: Web of Science - Scopus : Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen (2006) 0.01 
    0.007003988 = product of:
  0.014007976 = sum of:
    0.014007976 = product of:
      0.028015953 = sum of:
        0.028015953 = weight(_text_:22 in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028015953 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5034, 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=5034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    4. 6.2006 17:22:15
  15. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01 
    0.007003988 = product of:
  0.014007976 = sum of:
    0.014007976 = product of:
      0.028015953 = sum of:
        0.028015953 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028015953 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 27
  • d 8

Types

  • a 33
  • el 4
  • m 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes