Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

0.16794439 = product of:
  0.33588877 = sum of:
    0.33588877 = sum of:
      0.28852183 = weight(_text_:scholar in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.28852183 = score(doc=40,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.87969065 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.047366958 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047366958 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = 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)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

Object

Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar

0.16168231 = product of:
  0.32336462 = sum of:
    0.32336462 = sum of:
      0.26923093 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.26923093 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.82087356 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.05413367 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05413367 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049943898 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

Object

Google Scholar

0.10708594 = product of:
  0.21417189 = sum of:
    0.21417189 = product of:
      0.42834377 = sum of:
        0.42834377 = weight(_text_:scholar in 5061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.42834377 = score(doc=5061,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.3060018 = fieldWeight in 5061, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5061)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) provides a new method of locating potentially relevant articles on a given subject by identifying subsequent articles that cite a previously published article. An important feature of Google Scholar is that researchers can use it to trace interconnections among authors citing articles on the same topic and to determine the frequency with which others cite a specific article, as it has a "cited by" feature. This study begins with an overview of how to use Google Scholar for citation analysis and identifies advanced search techniques not well documented by Google Scholar. This study also compares the citation counts provided by Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles in the field of "Webometrics." It makes several suggestions for improving Google Scholar. Finally, it concludes that Google Scholar provides a free alternative or complement to other citation indexes.

Object

Google Scholar

0.089238286 = product of:
  0.17847657 = sum of:
    0.17847657 = product of:
      0.35695314 = sum of:
        0.35695314 = weight(_text_:scholar in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.35695314 = score(doc=337,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0883348 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

Object

Google Scholar

0.0874353 = product of:
  0.1748706 = sum of:
    0.1748706 = product of:
      0.3497412 = sum of:
        0.3497412 = weight(_text_:scholar in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.3497412 = score(doc=5131,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            1.0663459 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Der Beitrag widmet sich dem neuen Google-Suchdienst Google Scholar. Die Suchmaschine, die ausschließlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente durchsuchen soll, wird mit ihren wichtigsten Funktionen beschrieben und anschließend einem empirischen Test unterzogen. Die durchgeführte Studie basiert auf drei Zeitschriftenlisten: Zeitschriften von Thomson Scientific, Open AccessZeitschriften des Verzeichnisses DOAJ und in der Fachdatenbank SOLIS ausgewertete sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Die Abdeckung dieser Zeitschriften durch Google Scholar wurde per Abfrage der Zeitschriftentitel überprüft. Die Studie zeigt Defizite in der Abdeckung und Aktualität des Google Scholarlndex. Weiterhin macht die Studie deutlich, wer die wichtigsten Datenlieferanten für den neuen Suchdienst sind und welche wissenschaftlichen Informationsquellen im Index repräsentiert sind. Die Pluspunkte von Google Scholar liegen in seiner Einfachheit, seiner Suchgeschwindigkeit und letztendlich seiner Kostenfreiheit. Die Recherche in Fachdatenbanken kann Google Scholar trotz sichtbarer Potenziale (z. B. Zitationsanalyse) aber heute aufgrund mangelnder fachlicher Abdeckung und Transparenz nicht ersetzen.

Object

Google Scholar

0.07213046 = product of:
  0.14426091 = sum of:
    0.14426091 = product of:
      0.28852183 = sum of:
        0.28852183 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28852183 = score(doc=1255,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.87969065 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Chemical Abstracts Service recently unveiled citation searching in Chemical Abstracts. With Chemical Abstracts and Science Citation Index both now available for citation searching, this study compares the duplication and uniqueness of citing references for works of chemistry researchers for the years 1999-2001. The two indexes cover very similar source material, so one would expect the citation results to be very similar. This analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science shows some important differences as the databases are currently offered. Authors and institutions using citation counts as measures of scientific productivity should take note.

Object

SciFinder Scholar

0.05949219 = product of:
  0.11898438 = sum of:
    0.11898438 = product of:
      0.23796876 = sum of:
        0.23796876 = weight(_text_:scholar in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23796876 = score(doc=3298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.72555655 = fieldWeight in 3298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

Google Scholar

0.05889426 = product of:
  0.11778852 = sum of:
    0.11778852 = product of:
      0.23557705 = sum of:
        0.23557705 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23557705 = score(doc=1735,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.71826434 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings - The study suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value - The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation-enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.

Object

Google Scholar

0.0504808 = product of:
  0.1009616 = sum of:
    0.1009616 = product of:
      0.2019232 = sum of:
        0.2019232 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2019232 = score(doc=1376,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.6156552 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article examines the impact of the Internet and the age distribution of research scholars on academic citation age with a mathematical model proposed by Barnett, Fink, and Debus (1989) and a revised model that incorporates information about the online environment and scholar age distribution. The modified model fits the data well, accounting for 99.6% of the variance for science citations and 99.8% for social science citations. The Internet's impact on the aging process of academic citations has been very small, accounting for only 0.1% for the social sciences and 0.8% for the sciences. Rather than resulting in the use of more recent citations, the Internet appears to have lengthened the average life of academic citations by 6 to 8 months. The aging of scholars seems to have a greater impact, accounting for 2.8% of the variance for the sciences and 0.9% for the social sciences. However, because the diffusion of the Internet and the aging of the professoriate are correlated over this time period, differentiating their effects is somewhat problematic.

0.0504808 = product of:
  0.1009616 = sum of:
    0.1009616 = product of:
      0.2019232 = sum of:
        0.2019232 = weight(_text_:scholar in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2019232 = score(doc=444,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.6156552 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.

Object

Google Scholar

0.04759375 = product of:
  0.0951875 = sum of:
    0.0951875 = product of:
      0.190375 = sum of:
        0.190375 = weight(_text_:scholar in 1606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.190375 = score(doc=1606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.58044523 = fieldWeight in 1606, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article discusses the rationale for creating historiographs of scholarly topics using a new program called HistCite(TM), which produces a variety of analyses to aid the historian identify key events (papers), people (authors), and journals in a field. By creating a genealogic profile of the evolution, the program aids the scholar in evaluating the paradigm involved.

0.027066834 = product of:
  0.05413367 = sum of:
    0.05413367 = product of:
      0.10826734 = sum of:
        0.10826734 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10826734 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.027066834 = product of:
  0.05413367 = sum of:
    0.05413367 = product of:
      0.10826734 = sum of:
        0.10826734 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10826734 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.023923928 = product of:
  0.047847856 = sum of:
    0.047847856 = product of:
      0.09569571 = sum of:
        0.09569571 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09569571 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.023796875 = product of:
  0.04759375 = sum of:
    0.04759375 = product of:
      0.0951875 = sum of:
        0.0951875 = weight(_text_:scholar in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0951875 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.327981 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.29022262 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5669885 = idf(docFreq=168, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Indexes in general seek to provide a "key" to a body of literature intending to help the user in identifying, verifying, and/or locating individual or related items. The most common devices for collocation in indexes are authors' names and subjects. A different approach to collocating related items in an index is provided by a method called "citation indexing." Citation indexes attempt to link items through citations or references, in other works, by bringing together items cited in a particular work and the works citing a particular item. Citation indexing is based an the concept that there is a significant intellectual link between a document and each bibliographic item cited in it and that this link is useful to the scholar because an author's references to earlier writings identify relevant information to the subject of his current work. One of the major differences between the citation index and the traditional subject index is that the former, while listing current literature, also provides a retrospec tive view of past literature. While each issue of a traditional index is normally concerned only with the current literature, the citation index brings back retrospective literature in the form of cited references, thereby linking current scholarly works with earlier works. The advantages of the citation index have been considered to be its value as a tool for tracing the history of ideas or discoveries, for associating ideas between current and past work, and for evaluating works of individual authors or library collections. The concept of citation indexing is not new. It has been applied to legal literature since 1873 in a legal reference tool called Shepard's Citations. In the 1950s Eugene Garfield, a documentation consultant and founder and President of the Institute for Scientific Information (Philadelphia), developed the technique of citation indexing for scientific literature. This new application was facilitated by the availability of computer technology, resulting in a series of services: Science Citation Index (1955- ), Social Sciences Citation Index (1966- ), and the Arts & Humanities Index (1976- ). All three appear in printed versions and as machine-readable databases. In the following essay, the first in a series of articles and books elucidating the citation indexing system, Garfield traces the origin and beginning of this idea, its advantages, and the methods of preparing such indexes.

0.016916772 = product of:
  0.033833545 = sum of:
    0.033833545 = product of:
      0.06766709 = sum of:
        0.06766709 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06766709 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.0143543575 = product of:
  0.028708715 = sum of:
    0.028708715 = product of:
      0.05741743 = sum of:
        0.05741743 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05741743 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.0118417395 = product of:
  0.023683479 = sum of:
    0.023683479 = product of:
      0.047366958 = sum of:
        0.047366958 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047366958 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = 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

0.0118417395 = product of:
  0.023683479 = sum of:
    0.023683479 = product of:
      0.047366958 = sum of:
        0.047366958 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047366958 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = 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

0.010150063 = product of:
  0.020300126 = sum of:
    0.020300126 = product of:
      0.04060025 = sum of:
        0.04060025 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060025 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17489502 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049943898 = 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