Search (5750 results, page 1 of 288)

0.26587605 = product of:
  0.39881408 = sum of:
    0.2417184 = weight(_text_:citation in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2417184 = score(doc=102,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.0310018 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
    0.15709569 = sum of:
      0.11645231 = weight(_text_:reports in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11645231 = score(doc=102,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.51714313 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

University librarians continue to face the difficult task of determining which journals remain crucial for their collections during these times of static financial resources and escalating journal costs. One evaluative tool, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), recently has become available on CD-ROM, making it simpler for librarians to use its citation data as input for ranking journals. But many librarians remain unconvinced that the global citation data from the JCR bears enough correspondence to their local situation to be useful. In this project, I explore the correlation between global citation data available from JCR with local citation data generated specifically for the University of British Columbia, for 20 subject fields in the sciences and social sciences. The significant correlations obtained in this study suggest that large research-oriented university libraries could consider substituting global citation data for local citation data when evaluating their journals, with certain cautions.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Object

Journal Citation Reports

0.22423057 = product of:
  0.33634585 = sum of:
    0.29152334 = weight(_text_:citation in 7105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29152334 = score(doc=7105,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.2434349 = fieldWeight in 7105, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7105)
    0.044822514 = product of:
      0.08964503 = sum of:
        0.08964503 = weight(_text_:reports in 7105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08964503 = score(doc=7105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.39809695 = fieldWeight in 7105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7105)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Part 2 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Reports on studies of author co-citation, periodical by periodical citation analysis and country by country citation analysis in addition to the mapping of science as an application of citation analysis. Considers the limitations, problems and reliability of citation analysis

Theme

Citation indexing

0.22250943 = product of:
  0.33376414 = sum of:
    0.29454443 = weight(_text_:citation in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29454443 = score(doc=1735,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.2563207 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
    0.039219696 = product of:
      0.07843939 = sum of:
        0.07843939 = weight(_text_:reports in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07843939 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.34833482 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

Science citation index
Social sciences citation index
Arts and humanities citation index

Theme

Citation indexing

0.21936135 = product of:
  0.32904202 = sum of:
    0.27485085 = weight(_text_:citation in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.27485085 = score(doc=6091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.1723217 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.054191172 = product of:
      0.108382344 = sum of:
        0.108382344 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108382344 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Theme

Citation indexing

0.19526169 = product of:
  0.29289252 = sum of:
    0.224962 = weight(_text_:citation in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.224962 = score(doc=657,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.9595307 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
    0.06793051 = product of:
      0.13586102 = sum of:
        0.13586102 = weight(_text_:reports in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13586102 = score(doc=657,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.60333365 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Investigates the characteristics of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) through the study of the Science Citation Index (SCI). Other criteria for evaluating a journal are also discussed. The compilation process of SCI data, and the characteristics, applications and limitations of SCI are studied. A detailed description of JCR is provided including: journal ranking listing, citing journal listing, cited journal listing, subject category listing, source data, impact factor, immediacy index, cited half-life and citing half-life. The applications and limitations of JCR are also explored. In addition to the criteria listed in JCR, the size, circulation and influence of journals are also considered significant criteria fir evaluation purposes

Object

Science Citation Index
Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

0.18797033 = product of:
  0.28195548 = sum of:
    0.19205788 = weight(_text_:citation in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19205788 = score(doc=661,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8191847 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
    0.08989762 = sum of:
      0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05602814 = score(doc=661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
      0.033869483 = weight(_text_:22 in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033869483 = score(doc=661,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 661, 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=661)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Explicit definition of the limits of citation analysis demands additional tests for the validity of citation analysis. The stability of citation rankings over time can be regarded as confirming the validity of evaluative citation analysis. This stability over time was investigated for two sets of citation records from the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA) for articles published in journals classified in Journal Citation Reports as Mathematics. These sets are of all such articles for the 1960s and for the 1970s. This study employs only descriptive statistics and draws no inferences to any larger population. The study found a high correlation from one decade to the next of rankings among sets of most highly cited articles. However, the study found a low correlation for rankings among articles whose ranks were the 500 directly below those of the 500 most cited. This perhaps expected result is discussed in terms of the Glänzel-Schubert-Schoepflin stochastic model for citation processes and also in connection with an account of the purposes of evaluative citation analysis. This interpretative context suggests why the limitations of citation analysis may be inherent to citation analysis even when it is done well.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:23:35

0.18453708 = product of:
  0.2768056 = sum of:
    0.24293612 = weight(_text_:citation in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24293612 = score(doc=613,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.0361958 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.033869483 = product of:
      0.067738965 = sum of:
        0.067738965 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067738965 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Abschnitte zu: The origins of citation indexing in science - Citation analysis in sociology, history and philosophy of science - From ASIS to ASIST

Source

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

Theme

Citation indexing

0.18208592 = product of:
  0.27312887 = sum of:
    0.14727221 = weight(_text_:citation in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14727221 = score(doc=108,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.62816036 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
    0.12585667 = sum of:
      0.07843939 = weight(_text_:reports in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07843939 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.34833482 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
      0.047417276 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047417276 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Citation analysis has long been used by librarians as an important tool of collection development and the advent of Internet technology and especially the WWW adds a new facet to the role played by citation analysis. One of the reasons why librarians create WWW homepages is to provide users with further sources of interest or reference and to do this libraries include links from their own homepages to other information sources. Reports current research on the analysis of WWW pages as an introduction to an examination of the homepages of 25 art libraries to determine what sites are most often included. The types of linked sites are analyzed based on 3 criteria: location, focus and evidence that the link was evaluated before the connection was establisheds

Date

10. 1.1999 16:22:37

0.18056244 = product of:
  0.27084365 = sum of:
    0.1629665 = weight(_text_:citation in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1629665 = score(doc=3692,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.69510126 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
    0.10787715 = sum of:
      0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06723377 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to examine the patterns of self citation in 6 disciplines distributed among the physical and social sciences and humanities. Sample articles were examined to deermine the relative numbers and ages of self citations and citations to other in the bibliographies and to the exposure given to each type of citation in the text of the articles. significant differences were found in the number and age of citations between disciplines. Overall, 9% of all citations were self citations; 15% of physical sciences citations were self citations, as opposed to 6% in the social sciences and 3% in the humanities. Within disciplines, there was no significantly different amount of coverage between self citations and citations to others. Overall, it appears that a lack of substantive differences in self citation behaviour is consistent across disciplines

Date

22. 5.1999 19:33:24

Theme

Citation indexing

0.17745599 = product of:
  0.26618397 = sum of:
    0.21864252 = weight(_text_:citation in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21864252 = score(doc=453,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.9325762 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
    0.047541454 = product of:
      0.09508291 = sum of:
        0.09508291 = weight(_text_:reports in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09508291 = score(doc=453,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.4222456 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In addition to science citation indicators of journals like impact and immediacy, social network analysis provides a set of centrality measures like degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality. These measures are first analyzed for the entire set of 7,379 journals included in the Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index 2004 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), and then also in relation to local citation environments that can be considered as proxies of specialties and disciplines. Betweenness centrality is shown to be an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals, but only in local citation environments and after normalization; otherwise, the influence of degree centrality (size) overshadows the betweenness-centrality measure. The indicator is applied to a variety of citation environments, including policy-relevant ones like biotechnology and nanotechnology. The values of the indicator remain sensitive to the delineations of the set because of the indicator's local character. Maps showing interdisciplinarity of journals in terms of betweenness centrality can be drawn using information about journal citation environments, which is available online.

Object

Journal Citation Reports

0.17624287 = product of:
  0.2643643 = sum of:
    0.20613813 = weight(_text_:citation in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20613813 = score(doc=1953,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8792412 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
    0.058226153 = product of:
      0.11645231 = sum of:
        0.11645231 = weight(_text_:reports in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11645231 = score(doc=1953,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.51714313 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper examines the probability structure of the 2005 Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by analyzing the Impact Factor distributions of their journals. The distribution of the SCI journals corresponded with a distribution generally modeled by the negative binomial distribution, whereas the SSCI distribution fit the Poisson distribution modeling random, rare events. Both Impact Factor distributions were positively skewed - the SCI much more so than the SSCI - indicating excess variance. One of the causes of this excess variance was that the journals highest in the Impact Factor in both JCRs tended to class in subject categories well funded by the National Institutes of Health. The main reason for the SCI Impact Factor distribution being more skewed than the SSCI one was that review journals defining disciplinary paradigms play a much more important role in the sciences than in the social sciences.

Object

Science Citation Index
Social Sciences Citation Index
Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

0.17463975 = product of:
  0.2619596 = sum of:
    0.12623332 = weight(_text_:citation in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12623332 = score(doc=6389,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.5384232 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
    0.13572629 = sum of:
      0.09508291 = weight(_text_:reports in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09508291 = score(doc=6389,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.4222456 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=6389,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6389, 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=6389)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Examines the use of networked information sources in scholarly communication. Networked information sources are defined broadly to cover: documents and images stored on electronic network hosts; data files; newsgroups; listservs; online information services and electronic periodicals. Reports results of a survey to determine how heavily, if at all, networked information sources are cited in scholarly printed periodicals published in 1993 and 1994. 27 printed periodicals, representing a wide range of subjects and the most influential periodicals in their fields, were identified through the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index Journal Citation Reports. 97 articles were selected for further review and references, footnotes and bibliographies were checked for references to networked information sources. Only 2 articles were found to contain such references. Concludes that, although networked information sources facilitate scholars' work to a great extent during the research process, scholars have yet to incorporate such sources in the bibliographies of their published articles

Source

IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.240-245

0.17203873 = product of:
  0.2580581 = sum of:
    0.1901276 = weight(_text_:citation in 5076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1901276 = score(doc=5076,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8109515 = fieldWeight in 5076, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5076)
    0.06793051 = product of:
      0.13586102 = sum of:
        0.13586102 = weight(_text_:reports in 5076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13586102 = score(doc=5076,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.60333365 = fieldWeight in 5076, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5076)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Analyses 6 indicators of the Science Citation Index Journals Citation Reports over a 19 year period: number of total citations, number of citations to the previous 2 years, number of source items, impact factor, immediacy index and cited half life. Proposes a box plot method to aggregate the values of each indicator so as to obtain at a glance portrayals of the JCR population from 1974 to 1993. This 'rereading' of the JCR, which presents the JCR product differently, makes it possible to shed new light on the large sub population of journals not at the top of the rankings

Object

Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

0.17182502 = product of:
  0.25773752 = sum of:
    0.1943489 = weight(_text_:citation in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1943489 = score(doc=1746,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8289566 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
    0.06338861 = product of:
      0.12677722 = sum of:
        0.12677722 = weight(_text_:reports in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12677722 = score(doc=1746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.5629941 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The timeline used in ISI's Journal Citation Reports (JCR; Thomson ISI, formerly the Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) for half-life calculations, is not a timeline for (average) cited age. These two timelines are shifted over half a year.

Object

Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

0.16909254 = product of:
  0.2536388 = sum of:
    0.14576167 = weight(_text_:citation in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14576167 = score(doc=4460,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.62171745 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.10787715 = sum of:
      0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06723377 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.16578043 = product of:
  0.24867064 = sum of:
    0.224962 = weight(_text_:citation in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.224962 = score(doc=6920,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.9595307 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.023708638 = product of:
      0.047417276 = sum of:
        0.047417276 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047417276 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

Object

Science Citation Index
Social Sciences Citation Index
Arts and Humanities Citation Index

Theme

Citation indexing

0.16569339 = product of:
  0.24854007 = sum of:
    0.1943489 = weight(_text_:citation in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1943489 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8289566 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
    0.054191172 = product of:
      0.108382344 = sum of:
        0.108382344 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108382344 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

Theme

Citation indexing

0.16499603 = product of:
  0.24749403 = sum of:
    0.20827433 = weight(_text_:citation in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20827433 = score(doc=8281,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8883528 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
    0.039219696 = product of:
      0.07843939 = sum of:
        0.07843939 = weight(_text_:reports in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07843939 = score(doc=8281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.34833482 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Describes a method for the generation of journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Discusses sources of potential error from this data. Offers strategies to counteract such errors. Analyzes a number of scientometric periodical mappings in relation to mappings from previous studies which have used tape data and/or data from ISI's Journal Citation Reports. Compares the quality of these mappings with the quality of those for previous years in order to demonstrate the use of such mappings as indicators for dynamic developments in the sciences

Object

Science Citation Index

0.16372842 = product of:
  0.24559262 = sum of:
    0.1901276 = weight(_text_:citation in 60) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1901276 = score(doc=60,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8109515 = fieldWeight in 60, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=60)
    0.05546503 = product of:
      0.11093006 = sum of:
        0.11093006 = weight(_text_:reports in 60) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11093006 = score(doc=60,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.49261987 = fieldWeight in 60, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=60)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We analyze the large-scale structure of the journal citation network built from information contained in the Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports. To this end, we explore network properties such as density, percolation robustness, average and largest node distances, reciprocity, incoming and outgoing degree distributions, and assortative mixing by node degrees. We discover that the journal citation network is a dense, robust, small, and reciprocal world. Furthermore, in- and outdegree node distributions display long tails, with few vital journals and many trivial ones, and they are strongly positively correlated.

Object

Journal Citation Reports

0.15983668 = product of:
  0.23975502 = sum of:
    0.20613813 = weight(_text_:citation in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20613813 = score(doc=1825,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8792412 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
    0.033616886 = product of:
      0.06723377 = sum of:
        0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06723377 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

Theme

Citation indexing