Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

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

0.16909254 = 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

0.16499603 = 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

0.15607366 = product of:
  0.23411047 = sum of:
    0.12623332 = weight(_text_:citation in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12623332 = score(doc=4681,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.5384232 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
    0.10787715 = sum of:
      0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06723377 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

0.15070823 = product of:
  0.22606233 = sum of:
    0.17852087 = weight(_text_:citation in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17852087 = score(doc=2840,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.7614453 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
    0.047541454 = product of:
      0.09508291 = sum of:
        0.09508291 = weight(_text_:reports in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09508291 = score(doc=2840,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.4222456 = fieldWeight in 2840, 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=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.

Object

Journal Citation Report

0.14746177 = product of:
  0.22119266 = sum of:
    0.1629665 = weight(_text_:citation in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1629665 = score(doc=4427,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.69510126 = fieldWeight in 4427, 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=4427)
    0.058226153 = product of:
      0.11645231 = sum of:
        0.11645231 = weight(_text_:reports in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11645231 = score(doc=4427,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.51714313 = fieldWeight in 4427, 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=4427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix derived from Journal Citation Reports 2001 can be decomposed into a unique subject classification using the graph-analytical algorithm of bi-connected components. This technique was recently incorporated in software tools for social network analysis. The matrix can be assessed in terms of its decomposability using articulation points which indicate overlap between the components. The articulation points of this set did not exhibit a next-order network of "general science" journals. However, the clusters differ in size and in terms of the internal density of their relations. A full classification of the journals is provided in the Appendix. The clusters can also be extracted and mapped for the visualization.

Object

Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

0.14671463 = product of:
  0.22007194 = sum of:
    0.19205788 = weight(_text_:citation in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19205788 = score(doc=82,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8191847 = fieldWeight in 82, 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=82)
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 82, 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=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citation networks based on the Journal Citation Reports 2004 of the Science Citation Index (5,968 journals) and the Social Science Citation Index (1,712 journals) are made accessible from the perspective of any of these journals. A vector-space model Is used for normalization, and the results are brought online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/jcr04 as input files for the visualization program Pajek. The user is thus able to analyze the citation environment in terms of links and graphs. Furthermore, the local impact of a journal is defined as its share of the total citations in the specific journal's citation environments; the vertical size of the nodes is varied proportionally to this citation impact. The horizontal size of each node can be used to provide the same information after correction for within-journal (self-)citations. In the "citing" environment, the equivalents of this measure can be considered as a citation activity index which maps how the relevant journal environment is perceived by the collective of authors of a given journal. As a policy application, the mechanism of Interdisciplinary developments among the sciences is elaborated for the case of nanotechnology journals.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.1310556 = product of:
  0.19658339 = sum of:
    0.1629665 = weight(_text_:citation in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1629665 = score(doc=5046,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.69510126 = fieldWeight in 5046, 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=5046)
    0.033616886 = product of:
      0.06723377 = sum of:
        0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 5046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06723377 = score(doc=5046,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 5046, 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=5046)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aggregated citation relations among journals included in the Science Citation Index provide us with a huge matrix, which can be analyzed in various ways. By using principal component analysis or factor analysis, the factor scores can be employed as indicators of the position of the cited journals in the citing dimensions of the database. Unrotated factor scores are exact, and the extraction of principal components can be made stepwise because the principal components are independent. Rotation may be needed for the designation, but in the rotated solution a model is assumed. This assumption can be legitimated on pragmatic or theoretical grounds. Because the resulting outcomes remain sensitive to the assumptions in the model, an unambiguous classification is no longer possible in this case. However, the factor-analytic solutions allow us to test classifications against the structures contained in the database; in this article the process will be demonstrated for the delineation of a set of biochemistry journals.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.11841458 = product of:
  0.17762187 = sum of:
    0.16068713 = weight(_text_:citation in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16068713 = score(doc=4186,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.685379 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.016934741 = product of:
      0.033869483 = sum of:
        0.033869483 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033869483 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

0.11332657 = product of:
  0.16998985 = sum of:
    0.12146806 = weight(_text_:citation in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12146806 = score(doc=3335,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.5180979 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
    0.048521794 = product of:
      0.09704359 = sum of:
        0.09704359 = weight(_text_:reports in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09704359 = score(doc=3335,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.4309526 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.

Object

Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

0.109212995 = product of:
  0.16381949 = sum of:
    0.13580543 = weight(_text_:citation in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13580543 = score(doc=3090,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.57925105 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 3090, 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=3090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We compare the network of aggregated journal-journal citation relations provided by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 of the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) with similar data based on Scopus 2012. First, global and overlay maps were developed for the 2 sets separately. Using fuzzy-string matching and ISSN numbers, we were able to match 10,524 journal names between the 2 sets: 96.4% of the 10,936 journals contained in JCR, or 51.2% of the 20,554 journals covered by Scopus. Network analysis was pursued on the set of journals shared between the 2 databases and the 2 sets of unique journals. Citations among the shared journals are more comprehensively covered in JCR than in Scopus, so the network in JCR is denser and more connected than in Scopus. The ranking of shared journals in terms of indegree (i.e., numbers of citing journals) or total citations is similar in both databases overall (Spearman rank correlation ??>?0.97), but some individual journals rank very differently. Journals that are unique to Scopus seem to be less important-they are citing shared journals rather than being cited by them-but the humanities are covered better in Scopus than in JCR.

0.10739063 = product of:
  0.16108593 = sum of:
    0.12146806 = weight(_text_:citation in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12146806 = score(doc=2713,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.5180979 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
    0.039617877 = product of:
      0.079235755 = sum of:
        0.079235755 = weight(_text_:reports in 2713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079235755 = score(doc=2713,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.3518713 = fieldWeight in 2713, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The decomposition of scientific literature into disciplinary and subdisciplinary structures is one of the core goals of scientometrics. How can we achieve a good decomposition? The ISI subject categories classify journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports can be aggregated on the basis of these categories. This leads to an asymmetrical matrix (citing versus cited) that is much more densely populated than the underlying matrix at the journal level. Exploratory factor analysis of the matrix of subject categories suggests a 14-factor solution. This solution could be interpreted as the disciplinary structure of science. The nested maps of science (corresponding to 14 factors, 172 categories, and 6,164 journals) are online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/map06. Presumably, inaccuracies in the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories average out so that the factor analysis reveals the main structures. The mapping of science could, therefore, be comprehensive and reliable on a large scale albeit imprecise in terms of the attribution of journals to the ISI subject categories.

Object

Journal Citation Reports

0.09965476 = product of:
  0.14948213 = sum of:
    0.12146806 = weight(_text_:citation in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12146806 = score(doc=3095,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.5180979 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 3095, 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=3095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix - based on the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science Citation Index - can be decomposed by indexers or algorithmically. In this study, we test the results of two recently available algorithms for the decomposition of large matrices against two content-based classifications of journals: the ISI Subject Categories and the field/subfield classification of Glänzel and Schubert (2003). The content-based schemes allow for the attribution of more than a single category to a journal, whereas the algorithms maximize the ratio of within-category citations over between-category citations in the aggregated category-category citation matrix. By adding categories, indexers generate between-category citations, which may enrich the database, for example, in the case of inter-disciplinary developments. Algorithmic decompositions, on the other hand, are more heavily skewed towards a relatively small number of categories, while this is deliberately counter-acted upon in the case of content-based classifications. Because of the indexer effects, science policy studies and the sociology of science should be careful when using content-based classifications, which are made for bibliographic disclosure, and not for the purpose of analyzing latent structures in scientific communications. Despite the large differences among them, the four classification schemes enable us to generate surprisingly similar maps of science at the global level. Erroneous classifications are cancelled as noise at the aggregate level, but may disturb the evaluation locally.

0.09965476 = product of:
  0.14948213 = sum of:
    0.12146806 = weight(_text_:citation in 3328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12146806 = score(doc=3328,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.5180979 = fieldWeight in 3328, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3328)
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 3328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=3328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 3328, 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=3328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Using 3 years of the Journal Citation Reports (2011, 2012, and 2013), indicators of transitions in 2012 (between 2011 and 2013) were studied using methodologies based on entropy statistics. Changes can be indicated at the level of journals using the margin totals of entropy production along the row or column vectors, but also at the level of links among journals by importing the transition matrices into network analysis and visualization programs (and using community-finding algorithms). Seventy-four journals were flagged in terms of discontinuous changes in their citations, but 3,114 journals were involved in "hot" links. Most of these links are embedded in a main component; 78 clusters (containing 172 journals) were flagged as potential "hot spots" emerging at the network level. An additional finding was that PLoS ONE introduced a new communication dynamic into the database. The limitations of the methodology were elaborated using an example. The results of the study indicate where developments in the citation dynamics can be considered as significantly unexpected. This can be used as heuristic information, but what a "hot spot" in terms of the entropy statistics of aggregated citation relations means substantively can be expected to vary from case to case.

0.08880567 = product of:
  0.1332085 = sum of:
    0.105194435 = weight(_text_:citation in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105194435 = score(doc=1131,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.44868594 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 1131, 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=1131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Using the option Analyze Results with the Web of Science, one can directly generate overlays onto global journal maps of science. The maps are based on the 10,000+ journals contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices (2011). The disciplinary diversity of the retrieval is measured in terms of Rao-Stirling's "quadratic entropy" (Izsák & Papp, 1995). Since this indicator of interdisciplinarity is normalized between 0 and 1, interdisciplinarity can be compared among document sets and across years, cited or citing. The colors used for the overlays are based on Blondel, Guillaume, Lambiotte, and Lefebvre's (2008) community-finding algorithms operating on the relations among journals included in the JCR. The results can be exported from VOSViewer with different options such as proportional labels, heat maps, or cluster density maps. The maps can also be web-started or animated (e.g., using PowerPoint). The "citing" dimension of the aggregated journal-journal citation matrix was found to provide a more comprehensive description than the matrix based on the cited archive. The relations between local and global maps and their different functions in studying the sciences in terms of journal literatures are further discussed: Local and global maps are based on different assumptions and can be expected to serve different purposes for the explanation.

0.07498734 = product of:
  0.224962 = sum of:
    0.224962 = weight(_text_:citation in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.224962 = score(doc=5130,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.9595307 = fieldWeight in 5130, 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=5130)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication

Footnote

Lead paper in a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'

Theme

Citation indexing

0.05950696 = product of:
  0.17852087 = sum of:
    0.17852087 = weight(_text_:citation in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17852087 = score(doc=4813,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.7614453 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.05950696 = product of:
  0.17852087 = sum of:
    0.17852087 = weight(_text_:citation in 1341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17852087 = score(doc=1341,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.7614453 = fieldWeight in 1341, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1341)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The debate about which similarity measure one should use for the normalization in the case of Author Co-citation Analysis (ACA) is further complicated when one distinguishes between the symmetrical co-citation - or, more generally, co-occurrence - matrix and the underlying asymmetrical citation - occurrence - matrix. In the Web environment, the approach of retrieving original citation data is often not feasible. In that case, one should use the Jaccard index, but preferentially after adding the number of total citations (i.e., occurrences) on the main diagonal. Unlike Salton's cosine and the Pearson correlation, the Jaccard index abstracts from the shape of the distributions and focuses only on the intersection and the sum of the two sets. Since the correlations in the co-occurrence matrix may be spurious, this property of the Jaccard index can be considered as an advantage in this case.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.05950696 = product of:
  0.17852087 = sum of:
    0.17852087 = weight(_text_:citation in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17852087 = score(doc=3436,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.7614453 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.

Object

Arts and Humanities Citation Index

Theme

Citation indexing

0.05950696 = product of:
  0.17852087 = sum of:
    0.17852087 = weight(_text_:citation in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17852087 = score(doc=943,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.7614453 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

Theme

Citation indexing