Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.048587225 = product of:
  0.14576167 = sum of:
    0.14576167 = weight(_text_:citation in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14576167 = score(doc=4627,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.62171745 = fieldWeight in 4627, 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=4627)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The objective of this research is to examine the interaction of institutions, based on their citation and collaboration networks. The domain of library and information science is examined, using data from 1965-2010. A linear model is formulated to explore the factors that are associated with institutional citation behaviors, using the number of citations as the dependent variable, and the number of collaborations, physical distance, and topical distance as independent variables. It is found that institutional citation behaviors are associated with social, topical, and geographical factors. Dynamically, the number of citations is becoming more associated with collaboration intensity and less dependent on the country boundary and/or physical distance. This research is informative for scientometricians and policy makers.

0.034356356 = product of:
  0.10306907 = sum of:
    0.10306907 = weight(_text_:citation in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10306907 = score(doc=4349,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.4396206 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ranking scientific productivity and prestige are often limited to homogeneous networks. These networks are unable to account for the multiple factors that constitute the scholarly communication and reward system. This study proposes a new informetric indicator, P-Rank, for measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks containing articles, authors, and journals. P-Rank differentiates the weight of each citation based on its citing papers, citing journals, and citing authors. Articles from 16 representative library and information science journals are selected as the dataset. Principle Component Analysis is conducted to examine the relationship between P-Rank and other bibliometric indicators. We also compare the correlation and rank variances between citation counts and P-Rank scores. This work provides a new approach to examining prestige in scholarly communication networks in a more comprehensive and nuanced way.

0.028630298 = product of:
  0.08589089 = sum of:
    0.08589089 = weight(_text_:citation in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08589089 = score(doc=1229,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.36635053 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.

0.024293613 = product of:
  0.072880834 = sum of:
    0.072880834 = weight(_text_:citation in 3298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072880834 = score(doc=3298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 3298, 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=3298)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.024293613 = product of:
  0.072880834 = sum of:
    0.072880834 = weight(_text_:citation in 2035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072880834 = score(doc=2035,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 2035, 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=2035)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article provides the first historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of addresses, and number of countries) derived from articles published between 1900 and 2011. The results demonstrate that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase in impact, from the beginning of the last century onward, and that this is not due simply to self-citations. A similar trend is also observed for the number of addresses and number of countries represented in the byline of an article. However, the constant inflation of collaboration since 1900 has resulted in diminishing citation returns: Larger and more diverse (in terms of institutional and country affiliation) teams are necessary to realize higher impact. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential causes of the impact gain in citations of collaborative papers.

0.020244677 = product of:
  0.06073403 = sum of:
    0.06073403 = weight(_text_:citation in 4143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06073403 = score(doc=4143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 4143, 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=4143)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This work identifies changes in dominant topics in library and information science (LIS) over time, by analyzing the 3,121 doctoral dissertations completed between 1930 and 2009 at North American Library and Information Science programs. The authors utilize latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) to identify latent topics diachronically and to identify representative dissertations of those topics. The findings indicate that the main topics in LIS have changed substantially from those in the initial period (1930-1969) to the present (2000-2009). However, some themes occurred in multiple periods, representing core areas of the field: library history occurred in the first two periods; citation analysis in the second and third periods; and information-seeking behavior in the fourth and last period. Two topics occurred in three of the five periods: information retrieval and information use. One of the notable changes in the topics was the diminishing use of the word library (and related terms). This has implications for the provision of doctoral education in LIS. This work is compared to other earlier analyses and provides validation for the use of LDA in topic analysis of a discipline.

0.020244677 = product of:
  0.06073403 = sum of:
    0.06073403 = weight(_text_:citation in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06073403 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 244, 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=244)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.020244677 = product of:
  0.06073403 = sum of:
    0.06073403 = weight(_text_:citation in 607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06073403 = score(doc=607,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 607, 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=607)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Conceptualizations of disciplinarity often focus on the social aspects of disciplines; that is, disciplines are defined by the set of individuals who participate in their activities and communications. However, operationalizations of disciplinarity often demarcate the boundaries of disciplines by standard classification schemes, which may be inflexible to changes in the participation profile of that discipline. To address this limitation, a metric called venue-author-coupling (VAC) is proposed and illustrated using journals from the Journal Citation Report's (JCR) library science and information science category. As JCRs are some of the most frequently used categories in bibliometric analyses, this allows for an examination of the extent to which the journals in JCR categories can be considered as proxies for disciplines. By extending the idea of bibliographic coupling, VAC identifies similarities among journals based on the similarities of their author profiles. The employment of this method using information science and library science journals provides evidence of four distinct subfields, that is, management information systems, specialized information and library science, library science-focused, and information science-focused research. The proposed VAC method provides a novel way to examine disciplinarity from the perspective of author communities.

0.020244677 = product of:
  0.06073403 = sum of:
    0.06073403 = weight(_text_:citation in 678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06073403 = score(doc=678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 678, 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=678)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Online videos provide a novel, and often interactive, platform for the popularization of science. One successful collection is hosted on the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) website. This study uses a range of bibliometric (citation) and webometric (usage and bookmarking) indicators to examine TED videos in order to provide insights into the type and scope of their impact. The results suggest that TED Talks impact primarily the public sphere, with about three-quarters of a billion total views, rather than the academic realm. Differences were found among broad disciplinary areas, with art and design videos having generally lower levels of impact but science and technology videos generating otherwise average impact for TED. Many of the metrics were only loosely related, but there was a general consensus about the most popular videos as measured through views or comments on YouTube and the TED site. Moreover, most videos were found in at least one online syllabus and videos in online syllabi tended to be more viewed, discussed, and blogged. Less-liked videos generated more discussion, although this may be because they are more controversial. Science and technology videos presented by academics were more liked than those by nonacademics, showing that academics are not disadvantaged in this new media environment.

0.020244677 = product of:
  0.06073403 = sum of:
    0.06073403 = weight(_text_:citation in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06073403 = score(doc=1285,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 1285, 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=1285)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers-both published and unpublished-have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.