Search (171 results, page 2 of 9)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.02 
    0.024513958 = product of:
  0.049027916 = sum of:
    0.049027916 = product of:
      0.09805583 = sum of:
        0.09805583 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09805583 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
  2. Tsay, M.-y.: Literature growth, journal characteristics, and suthor productivity in subject indexing, 1977 to 2000 (2004) 0.02 
    0.02436923 = product of:
  0.04873846 = sum of:
    0.04873846 = product of:
      0.09747692 = sum of:
        0.09747692 = weight(_text_:2000 in 2070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09747692 = score(doc=2070,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.46530122 = fieldWeight in 2070, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2070)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study employed the Perl program, Excel software, and some bibliometric techniques to investigate growth pattern, journal characteristics, and author productivity of the subject indexing literature from 1977 to 2000, based an the subject search of a descriptor field in the Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) database. The literature growth from 1977 to 2000 in subject indexing could be fitted well by the logistic curve. The Bradford plot of journal literature fits the typical Bradford-Zipf S-shaped curve. Twenty core journals making a significant contribution could be identified from the Bradford-Zipf distribution. Four major research topics in the area of subject indexing were identified as: (1) information organization, (2) information processing, (3) information storage and retrieval, and (4) information systems and services. It was also found that a vast majority of authors (76.7%) contributed only one article, which is a much larger percentage than the 60% of original Lotka's data. The 15 most productive authors and the key concepts of their research were identified.
  3. Shen, J.; Yao, L.; Li, Y.; Clarke, M.; Wang, L.; Li, D.: Visualizing the history of evidence-based medicine : a bibliometric analysis (2013) 0.02 
    0.023449304 = product of:
  0.046898607 = sum of:
    0.046898607 = product of:
      0.093797214 = sum of:
        0.093797214 = weight(_text_:2000 in 1090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093797214 = score(doc=1090,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.44773632 = fieldWeight in 1090, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to visualize the history of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and to examine the characteristics of EBM development in China and the West. We searched the Web of Science and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database for papers related to EBM. We applied information visualization techniques, citation analysis, cocitation analysis, cocitation cluster analysis, and network analysis to construct historiographies, themes networks, and chronological theme maps regarding EBM in China and the West. EBM appeared to develop in 4 stages: incubation (1972-1992 in the West vs. 1982-1999 in China), initiation (1992-1993 vs. 1999-2000), rapid development (1993-2000 vs. 2000-2004), and stable distribution (2000 onwards vs. 2004 onwards). Although there was a lag in EBM initiation in China compared with the West, the pace of development appeared similar. Our study shows that important differences exist in research themes, domain structures, and development depth, and in the speed of adoption between China and the West. In the West, efforts in EBM have shifted from education to practice, and from the quality of evidence to its translation. In China, there was a similar shift from education to practice, and from production of evidence to its translation. In addition, this concept has diffused to other healthcare areas, leading to the development of evidence-based traditional Chinese medicine, evidence-based nursing, and evidence-based policy making.
  4. Pulgarin, A.; Gil-Leiva, I.: Bibliometric analysis of the automatic indexing literature : 1956-2000 (2004) 0.02 
    0.023213625 = product of:
  0.04642725 = sum of:
    0.04642725 = product of:
      0.0928545 = sum of:
        0.0928545 = weight(_text_:2000 in 2566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0928545 = score(doc=2566,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.44323632 = fieldWeight in 2566, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We present a bibliometric study of a corpus of 839 bibliographic references about automatic indexing, covering the period 1956-2000. We analyse the distribution of authors and works, the obsolescence and its dispersion, and the distribution of the literature by topic, year, and source type. We conclude that: (i) there has been a constant interest on the part of researchers; (ii) the most studied topics were the techniques and methods employed and the general aspects of automatic indexing; (iii) the productivity of the authors does fit a Lotka distribution (Dmax=0.02 and critical value=0.054); (iv) the annual aging factor is 95%; and (v) the dispersion of the literature is low.
  5. Ohly, H.P.: ¬Der 'Stand der Technik' : eine bibliometrische Betrachtungsweise (2000) 0.02 
    0.02297553 = product of:
  0.04595106 = sum of:
    0.04595106 = product of:
      0.09190212 = sum of:
        0.09190212 = weight(_text_:2000 in 6644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09190212 = score(doc=6644,freq=3.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.4386902 = fieldWeight in 6644, product of:
              1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
                3.0 = termFreq=3.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Year
    2000
  6. Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000) 0.02 
    0.02224596 = product of:
  0.04449192 = sum of:
    0.04449192 = product of:
      0.08898384 = sum of:
        0.08898384 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898384 = score(doc=4382,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.42475992 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.123-138
    Year
    2000
  7. Lee, W.M.: Publication trends of doctoral students in three fields from 1965-1995 (2000) 0.02 
    0.02224596 = product of:
  0.04449192 = sum of:
    0.04449192 = product of:
      0.08898384 = sum of:
        0.08898384 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898384 = score(doc=4383,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.42475992 = fieldWeight in 4383, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.139-144
    Year
    2000
  8. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000) 0.02 
    0.02224596 = product of:
  0.04449192 = sum of:
    0.04449192 = product of:
      0.08898384 = sum of:
        0.08898384 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898384 = score(doc=4384,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.42475992 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.145-157
    Year
    2000
  9. Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000) 0.02 
    0.02224596 = product of:
  0.04449192 = sum of:
    0.04449192 = product of:
      0.08898384 = sum of:
        0.08898384 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898384 = score(doc=4587,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.42475992 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.432-443
    Year
    2000
  10. Steele, T.W.; Stier, J.C.: ¬The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences : a forestry case study (2000) 0.02 
    0.02224596 = product of:
  0.04449192 = sum of:
    0.04449192 = product of:
      0.08898384 = sum of:
        0.08898384 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898384 = score(doc=4592,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.42475992 = fieldWeight in 4592, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.476-484
    Year
    2000
  11. Brooks, T.A.: How good are the best papers of JASIS? (2000) 0.02 
    0.02224596 = product of:
  0.04449192 = sum of:
    0.04449192 = product of:
      0.08898384 = sum of:
        0.08898384 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898384 = score(doc=4593,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.42475992 = fieldWeight in 4593, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.485-486
    Year
    2000
  12. Alvarez, P.; Escalona, I.; Pulgarin, A.: What is wrong with obsolescence? (2000) 0.02 
    0.02224596 = product of:
  0.04449192 = sum of:
    0.04449192 = product of:
      0.08898384 = sum of:
        0.08898384 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898384 = score(doc=4858,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.42475992 = fieldWeight in 4858, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.9, S.812-815
    Year
    2000
  13. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Aging, obsolescence, impact, growth, and utilization : definitions and relations (2000) 0.02 
    0.02224596 = product of:
  0.04449192 = sum of:
    0.04449192 = product of:
      0.08898384 = sum of:
        0.08898384 = weight(_text_:2000 in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898384 = score(doc=5154,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.42475992 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.11, S.1004-1017
    Year
    2000
  14. He, Q.: ¬A study of the strength indexes in co-word analysis (2000) 0.02 
    0.02224596 = product of:
  0.04449192 = sum of:
    0.04449192 = product of:
      0.08898384 = sum of:
        0.08898384 = weight(_text_:2000 in 111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898384 = score(doc=111,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.42475992 = fieldWeight in 111, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=111)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al
    Year
    2000
  15. Jacobs, N.; Woodfield, J.; Morris, A.: Using local citation data to relate the use of journal articles by academic researchers to the coverage of full-text document access systems (2000) 0.02 
    0.02224596 = product of:
  0.04449192 = sum of:
    0.04449192 = product of:
      0.08898384 = sum of:
        0.08898384 = weight(_text_:2000 in 4541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08898384 = score(doc=4541,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.42475992 = fieldWeight in 4541, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 56(2000) no.5, S.563-581
    Year
    2000
  16. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.02 
    0.021011963 = product of:
  0.042023927 = sum of:
    0.042023927 = product of:
      0.084047854 = sum of:
        0.084047854 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084047854 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  17. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02 
    0.021011963 = product of:
  0.042023927 = sum of:
    0.042023927 = product of:
      0.084047854 = sum of:
        0.084047854 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084047854 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18102784 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  18. Momeni, F.; Mayr, P.: Analyzing the research output presented at European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems workshops (2000-2015) (2016) 0.02 
    0.020307692 = product of:
  0.040615384 = sum of:
    0.040615384 = product of:
      0.08123077 = sum of:
        0.08123077 = weight(_text_:2000 in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08123077 = score(doc=3106,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.387751 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this paper we analyze a major part of the research output of the Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) community in the period 2000 to 2015 from a network analytical perspective. We fo- cus on the paper output presented at the European NKOS workshops in the last 15 years. Our open dataset, the "NKOS bibliography", includes 14 workshop agendas (ECDL 2000-2010, TPDL 2011-2015) and 4 special issues on NKOS (2001, 2004, 2006 and 2015) which cover 171 papers with 218 distinct authors in total. A focus of the analysis is the visualization of co-authorship networks in this interdisciplinary eld. We used standard network analytic measures like degree and betweenness centrality to de- scribe the co-authorship distribution in our NKOS dataset. We can see in our dataset that 15% (with degree=0) of authors had no co-authorship with others and 53% of them had a maximum of 3 cooperations with other authors. 32% had at least 4 co-authors for all of their papers. The NKOS co-author network in the "NKOS bibliography" is a typical co- authorship network with one relatively large component, many smaller components and many isolated co-authorships or triples.
  19. Calster, B. Van: It takes time : a remarkable example of delayed recognition (2012) 0.02 
    0.019897394 = product of:
  0.039794788 = sum of:
    0.039794788 = product of:
      0.079589576 = sum of:
        0.079589576 = weight(_text_:2000 in 507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079589576 = score(doc=507,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.37991685 = fieldWeight in 507, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=507)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The way in which scientific publications are picked up by the research community can vary. Some articles become instantly cited, whereas others go unnoticed for some time before they are discovered or rediscovered. Papers with delayed recognition have also been labeled "sleeping beauties." I briefly discuss an extreme case of a sleeping beauty. Peirce's short note in Science in 1884 shows a remarkable increase in citations since around 2000. The note received less than 1 citation per year in the decades prior to 2000, 3.5 citations per year in the 2000s, and 10.4 in the 2010s. This increase was seen in several domains, most notably meteorology, medical prediction research, and economics. The paper outlines formulas to evaluate a binary prediction system for a binary outcome. This citation increase in various domains may be attributed to a widespread, growing research focus on mathematical prediction systems and the evaluation thereof. Several recently suggested evaluation measures essentially reinvented or extended Peirce's 120-year-old ideas.
  20. Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Chambers, T.: Productivity and influence in bioinformatics : a bibliometric analysis using PubMed central (2014) 0.02 
    0.019897394 = product of:
  0.039794788 = sum of:
    0.039794788 = product of:
      0.079589576 = sum of:
        0.079589576 = weight(_text_:2000 in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079589576 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20949209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051695216 = queryNorm
            0.37991685 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0524464 = idf(docFreq=2088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bioinformatics is a fast-growing field based on the optimal use of "big data" gathered in genomic, proteomics, and functional genomics research. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive and in-depth bibliometric analysis of the field of bioinformatics by extracting citation data from PubMed Central full-text. Citation data for the period 2000 to 2011, comprising 20,869 papers with 546,245 citations, was used to evaluate the productivity and influence of this emerging field. Four measures were used to identify productivity; most productive authors, most productive countries, most productive organizations, and most popular subject terms. Research impact was analyzed based on the measures of most cited papers, most cited authors, emerging stars, and leading organizations. Results show the overall trends between the periods 2000 to 2003 and 2004 to 2007 were dissimilar, while trends between the periods 2004 to 2007 and 2008 to 2011 were similar. In addition, the field of bioinformatics has undergone a significant shift, co-evolving with other biomedical disciplines.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 157
  • d 13
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 168
  • m 3
  • el 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications