Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Oppenheim, C."
  1. Oppenheim, C.: Do citations count? : Citation indexing and the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) (1996) 0.06
    0.06478297 = product of:
      0.1943489 = sum of:
        0.1943489 = weight(_text_:citation in 6673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1943489 = score(doc=6673,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.8289566 = fieldWeight in 6673, 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=6673)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Citations are used to illustrate or elaborate on a point, or to criticize. Citation studies, based on ISI's citation indexes, can help evaluate scientific research, while impact factors aid libraries in deciding which journals to cancel or purchase. Suggests that citiation counts can replace the costly RAE in assessing the research output of university departments
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  2. Johnson, B.; Oppenheim, C.: How socially connected are citers to those that they cite? (2007) 0.06
    0.06401929 = product of:
      0.19205788 = sum of:
        0.19205788 = weight(_text_:citation in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19205788 = score(doc=839,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.8191847 = fieldWeight in 839, 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=839)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the social and citation networks of three information scientists: David Nicholas, Peter Williams and Paul Huntington. Design/methodology/approach - Similarities between citation patterns and social closeness were identified and discussed. A total of 16 individuals in the citation network were identified and investigated using citation analysis, and a matrix formed of citations made between those in the network. Social connections between the 16 in the citation network were then investigated by means of a questionnaire, the results of which were merged into a separate matrix. These matrices were converted into visual social networks, using multidimensional scaling. A new deviance measure was devised for drawing comparisons between social and citation closeness in individual cases. Findings - Nicholas, Williams and Huntington were found to have cited 527 authors in the period 2000-2003, the 16 most cited becoming the subjects of further citation and social investigation. This comparison, along with the examination of visual representations indicates a positive correlation between social closeness and citation counts. Possible explanations for this correlation are discussed, and implications considered. Despite this correlation, the information scientists were found to cite widely outside their immediate social connections. Originality/value - Social network analysis has not been often used in combination with citation analysis to explore inter-relationships in research teams.
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  3. Baird, L.M.; Oppenheim, C.: Do citations matter? (1994) 0.06
    0.05950696 = product of:
      0.17852087 = sum of:
        0.17852087 = weight(_text_:citation in 6896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17852087 = score(doc=6896,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.7614453 = fieldWeight in 6896, 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=6896)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Citation indexes are based on the principle of authors citing previous articles of relevance. The paper demonstrates the long history of citing for precedent and notes how ISI's citation indexes differ from 'Shephards Citations'. The paper analyses some of the criticisms of citations counting, and some of the uses for which citation analysis has been employed. The paper also examines the idea of the development of an Acknowledgement Index, and concludes such an index is unlikely to be commercially viable. The paper describes a citation study of Eugene Garfield, and concludes that he may be the most heavily cited information scientist, that he is a heavy self-citer, and that the reasons why other authors cite Garfield are different from the reasons why he cites himself. The paper concludes that citation studies remain a valid methgod of analysis of individuals', institutions', or journals' impact, but need to be used with caution and in conjunction with other measures
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  4. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.; Rowland, F.: ¬The citation advantage of open-access articles (2008) 0.06
    0.057260595 = product of:
      0.17178178 = sum of:
        0.17178178 = weight(_text_:citation in 2374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17178178 = score(doc=2374,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.73270106 = fieldWeight in 2374, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2374)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Four subjects - ecology, applied mathematics, sociology, and economics - were selected to assess whether there is a citation advantage between journal articles that have an open-access (OA) version on the Internet compared to those articles that are exclusively toll access (TA). Citations were counted using the Web of Science, and the OA status of articles was determined by searching OAIster, OpenDOAR, Google, and Google Scholar. Of a sample of 4,633 articles examined, 2,280 (49%) were OA and had a mean citation count of 9.04 whereas the mean for TA articles was 5.76. There appears to be a clear citation advantage for those articles that are OA as opposed to those that are TA. This advantage, however, varies between disciplines, with sociology having the highest citation advantage, but the lowest number of OA articles, from the sample taken, and ecology having the highest individual citation count for OA articles, but the smallest citation advantage. Tests of correlation or association between OA status and a number of variables were generally found to weak or inconsistent. The cause of this citation advantage has not been determined.
  5. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010) 0.05
    0.05177918 = product of:
      0.07766877 = sum of:
        0.06073403 = weight(_text_:citation in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06073403 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
        0.016934741 = product of:
          0.033869483 = sum of:
            0.033869483 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033869483 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04999695 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
    Date
    8. 1.2011 19:22:13
  6. Oppenheim, C.: Using the h-Index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship (2007) 0.02
    0.024293613 = product of:
      0.072880834 = sum of:
        0.072880834 = weight(_text_:citation in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072880834 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The recently developed h-index has been applied to the literature produced by senior British-based academics in librarianship and information science. The majority of those evaluated currently hold senior positions in UK information science and librarianship departments; however, a small number of staff in other departments and retired "founding fathers" were analyzed as well. The analysis was carried out using the Web of Science (Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) for the years from 1992 to October 2005, and included both secondauthored papers and self-citations. The top-ranking British information scientist, Peter Willett, has an h-index of 31. However, it was found that Eugene Garfield, the founder of modern citation studies, has an even higher h-index of 36. These results support other studies suggesting that the h-index is a useful tool in the armory of bibliometrics.
  7. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.: Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary (2011) 0.02
    0.020244677 = product of:
      0.06073403 = sum of:
        0.06073403 = weight(_text_:citation in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06073403 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.
  8. Cross, C.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬A genre analysis of scientific abstracts (2006) 0.01
    0.010564769 = product of:
      0.031694304 = sum of:
        0.031694304 = product of:
          0.06338861 = sum of:
            0.06338861 = weight(_text_:reports in 5603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06338861 = score(doc=5603,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04999695 = queryNorm
                0.28149706 = fieldWeight in 5603, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5603)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to analyse the structure of a small number of abstracts that have appeared in the CABI database over a number of years, during which time the authorship of the abstracts changed from CABI editorial staff to journal article authors themselves. This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology in an effort to discover whether these abstracts followed generally agreed abstracting guidelines. Design/methodology/approach - The method adopted was a move analysis of the text of the abstracts. This move analysis revealed a five-move pattern: move 1 situates the research within the scientific community; move 2 introduces the research by either describing the main features of the research or presenting its purpose; move 3 describes the methodology; move 4 states the results; and move 5 draws conclusions or suggests practical applications. Findings - Thematic analysis shows that scientific abstract authors thematise their subject by referring to the discourse domain or the "real" world. Not all of the abstracts succeeded in following the guideline advice. However, there was general consistency regarding semantic organisation and thematic structure. Research limitations/implications - The research limitations were the small number of abstracts examined, from just one subject domain. Practical limitations - The practical implications are the need for abstracting services to be clearer and more prescriptive regarding how they want abstracts to be structured as the lack of formal training in abstract writing increases the risk of subjectivity and verbosity and reduces clarity in scientific abstracts. Another implication of the research are that abstracting and indexing services must ensure that they maintain abstract quality if they introduce policies of accepting author abstracts. This is important as there is probably little formal training in abstract writing for science students at present. Recommendations for further research are made. Originality/value - This paper reports a study of the semantic organisation and thematic structure of 12 abstracts from the field of protozoology.
  9. Eager, C.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬An observational method for undertaking user needs studies (1996) 0.01
    0.009338023 = product of:
      0.02801407 = sum of:
        0.02801407 = product of:
          0.05602814 = sum of:
            0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05602814 = score(doc=3671,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04999695 = queryNorm
                0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 3671, 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=3671)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The study of information needs has long be acknowlegded as one of the most important factors in the design of information services but has been hampered by the severe problem of designing user studies that will reliably measure them. Reviews the literature of previous research in this field, concluding that time and money are the chief constraints on information seeking behaviour. Describes a new observational technique for identifying the information needs of users and reports results of a small scale experiment to test the methodology. The observational technique involves the researcher being with the subject continuously throughout the day and observing their actions. The behaviour recorded was any action taken in order to answer a question. A small scale study was undertaken of 3 academics from the Psychology Department, University of Strathclyde, using the observational technique. The preferred technique of all the academics was to carry out their own research, followed by consultation with other individuals. One lecturer was a significantly heavier user of electronic media than the other two. The preferred physical locations of the information sources were personal collections and the University Library. One lecturer consistently used a wide range of sources while the other two strongly preferred to use personal contacts. Informal sources were found to be twice as popular as formal sources. A follow up questionnaire survey examined the possibility that previous training in the use of the library could explain the differences in the use of electronic information sources but results were found to be negative. Concludes that the new research tool developed for this type of study is both robust and likely to yield reliable information about user information needs
  10. Oppenheim, C.: ¬The implications of copyright legislation for electronic access to journal collections (1994) 0.01
    0.009031862 = product of:
      0.027095586 = sum of:
        0.027095586 = product of:
          0.054191172 = sum of:
            0.054191172 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054191172 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04999695 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, 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=7245)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22
  11. Oppenheim, C.: ¬An agenda for action to achieve the information society in the UK (1996) 0.01
    0.009031862 = product of:
      0.027095586 = sum of:
        0.027095586 = product of:
          0.054191172 = sum of:
            0.054191172 = weight(_text_:22 in 7670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054191172 = score(doc=7670,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04999695 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7670, 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=7670)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.6, S.407-421
  12. Zuccala, A.; Thelwall, M.; Oppenheim, C.; Dhiensa, R.: Web intelligence analyses of digital libraries : a case study of the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) (2007) 0.01
    0.007470419 = product of:
      0.022411257 = sum of:
        0.022411257 = product of:
          0.044822514 = sum of:
            0.044822514 = weight(_text_:reports in 838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.044822514 = score(doc=838,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04999695 = queryNorm
                0.19904847 = fieldWeight in 838, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=838)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of LexiURL as a Web intelligence tool for collecting and analysing links to digital libraries, focusing specifically on the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH). Design/methodology/approach - The Web intelligence techniques in this study are a combination of link analysis (web structure mining), web server log file analysis (web usage mining), and text analysis (web content mining), utilizing the power of commercial search engines and drawing upon the information science fields of bibliometrics and webometrics. LexiURL is a computer program designed to calculate summary statistics for lists of links or URLs. Its output is a series of standard reports, for example listing and counting all of the different domain names in the data. Findings - Link data, when analysed together with user transaction log files (i.e. Web referring domains) can provide insights into who is using a digital library and when, and who could be using the digital library if they are "surfing" a particular part of the Web; in this case any site that is linked to or colinked with the NeLH. This study found that the NeLH was embedded in a multifaceted Web context, including many governmental, educational, commercial and organisational sites, with the most interesting being sites from the.edu domain, representing American Universities. Not many links directed to the NeLH were followed on September 25, 2005 (the date of the log file analysis and link extraction analysis), which means that users who access the digital library have been arriving at the site via only a few select links, bookmarks and search engine searches, or non-electronic sources. Originality/value - A number of studies concerning digital library users have been carried out using log file analysis as a research tool. Log files focus on real-time user transactions; while LexiURL can be used to extract links and colinks associated with a digital library's growing Web network. This Web network is not recognized often enough, and can be a useful indication of where potential users are surfing, even if they have not yet specifically visited the NeLH site.
  13. Oppenheim, C.: Intellectual property : legal and other issues (1997) 0.01
    0.0067738965 = product of:
      0.02032169 = sum of:
        0.02032169 = product of:
          0.04064338 = sum of:
            0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04064338 = score(doc=42,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04999695 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 42, 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=42)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Information studies. 3(1997) no.1, S.5-22
  14. Oppenheim, C.: Electronic scholarly publishing and open access (2009) 0.01
    0.0067738965 = product of:
      0.02032169 = sum of:
        0.02032169 = product of:
          0.04064338 = sum of:
            0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04064338 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04999695 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    8. 7.2010 19:22:45