Search (219 results, page 1 of 11)

0.14645365 = product of:
  0.21968046 = sum of:
    0.17178178 = weight(_text_:citation in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17178178 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.73270106 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.047898684 = product of:
      0.09579737 = sum of:
        0.09579737 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09579737 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

Theme

Citation indexing

0.13027112 = product of:
  0.19540668 = sum of:
    0.16831109 = weight(_text_:citation in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16831109 = score(doc=1149,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.71789753 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.027095586 = product of:
      0.054191172 = sum of:
        0.054191172 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054191172 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

Theme

Citation indexing

0.09597059 = product of:
  0.14395589 = sum of:
    0.12024725 = weight(_text_:citation in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12024725 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.51289076 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
    0.023708638 = product of:
      0.047417276 = sum of:
        0.047417276 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047417276 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

Theme

Citation indexing

0.080164835 = product of:
  0.2404945 = sum of:
    0.2404945 = weight(_text_:citation in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2404945 = score(doc=496,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.0257815 = fieldWeight in 496, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=496)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.058394577 = product of:
  0.17518373 = sum of:
    0.17518373 = weight(_text_:citation in 1246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17518373 = score(doc=1246,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.7472114 = fieldWeight in 1246, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1246)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Since their inception in the early 1960s the strength and unique aspect of the ISI citation indexes has been their ability to illustrate the conceptual relationships between scholarly documents. When authors create reference lists for their papers, they make explicit links between their own, current work and the prior work of others. The exact nature of these links may not be expressed in the references themselves, and the motivation behind them may vary (this has been the subject of much discussion over the years), but the links embodied in references do exist. Over the past 30+ years, technology has allowed ISI to make the presentation of citation searching increasingly accessible to users of our products. Citation searching and link tracking moved from being rather cumbersome in print, to being direct and efficient (albeit non-intuitive) online, to being somewhat more user-friendly in CD format. But it is the confluence of the hypertext link and development of Web browsers that has enabled us to present to users a new form of citation product -- the Web of Science -- that is intuitive and makes citation indexing conceptually accessible. A cited reference search begins with a known, important (or at least relevant) document used as the search term. The search allows one to identify subsequent articles that have cited that document. This feature adds the dimension of prospective searching to the usual retrospective searching that all bibliographic indexes provide. Citation indexing is a prime example of a concept before its time - important enough to be used in the meantime by those sufficiently motivated, but just waiting for the right technology to come along to expand its use. While it was possible to follow citation links in earlier citation index formats, this required a level of effort on the part of users that was often just too much to ask of the casual user. In the citation indexes as presented in the Web of Science, the relationship between citing and cited documents is evident to users, and a click of the mouse is all it takes to follow a citation link. Citation connections are established between the published papers being indexed from the 8,000+ journals ISI covers and the items their reference lists contain during the data capture process. It is the standardized capture of each of the references included with these documents that enables us to provide the citation searching feature in all the citation index formats, as well as both internal and external links in the Web of Science.

0.056685098 = product of:
  0.17005529 = sum of:
    0.17005529 = weight(_text_:citation in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17005529 = score(doc=5392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.725337 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.056685098 = product of:
  0.17005529 = sum of:
    0.17005529 = weight(_text_:citation in 4205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17005529 = score(doc=4205,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.725337 = fieldWeight in 4205, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4205)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.056685098 = product of:
  0.17005529 = sum of:
    0.17005529 = weight(_text_:citation in 5719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17005529 = score(doc=5719,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.725337 = fieldWeight in 5719, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5719)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The VOSviewer software provides easy access to bibliometric mapping using data from Dimensions, Scopus and Web of Science. The properly formatted and structured citation data, and the ease in which it can be exported open up new avenues for use during citation searches and eference interviews. This paper details specific techniques for using advanced searches in Dimensions, exporting the citation data, and drawing insights from the maps produced in VOS Viewer. These search techniques and data export practices are fast and accurate enough to build into reference interviews for graduate students, faculty, and post-PhD researchers. The search results derived from them are accurate and allow a more comprehensive view of citation networks embedded in ordinary complex boolean searches.

0.0561037 = product of:
  0.16831109 = sum of:
    0.16831109 = weight(_text_:citation in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16831109 = score(doc=1563,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.71789753 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The h-index has been shown to increase in many cases mostly because of citations to rather old publications. This inertia can be circumvented by restricting the evaluation to a citation time window. Here I report results of an empirical study analyzing the evolution of the thus defined timed h-index in dependence on the length of the citation time window.

0.05432217 = product of:
  0.1629665 = sum of:
    0.1629665 = weight(_text_:citation in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1629665 = score(doc=2417,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.69510126 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is a report about the use and misuse of citation data in the assessment of scientific research. The idea that research assessment must be done using "simple and objective" methods is increasingly prevalent today. The "simple and objective" methods are broadly interpreted as bibliometrics, that is, citation data and the statistics derived from them. There is a belief that citation statistics are inherently more accurate because they substitute simple numbers for complex judgments, and hence overcome the possible subjectivity of peer review. But this belief is unfounded. - Relying on statistics is not more accurate when the statistics are improperly used. Indeed, statistics can mislead when they are misapplied or misunderstood. Much of modern bibliometrics seems to rely on experience and intuition about the interpretation and validity of citation statistics. - While numbers appear to be "objective", their objectivity can be illusory. The meaning of a citation can be even more subjective than peer review. Because this subjectivity is less obvious for citations, those who use citation data are less likely to understand their limitations. - The sole reliance on citation data provides at best an incomplete and often shallow understanding of research - an understanding that is valid only when reinforced by other judgments. Numbers are not inherently superior to sound judgments.
Using citation data to assess research ultimately means using citation-based statistics to rank things.journals, papers, people, programs, and disciplines. The statistical tools used to rank these things are often misunderstood and misused. - For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The average captures only a small amount of information about that distribution, and it is a rather crude statistic. In addition, there are many confounding factors when judging journals by citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution when using impact factors. Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's health. - For papers, instead of relying on the actual count of citations to compare individual papers, people frequently substitute the impact factor of the journals in which the papers appear. They believe that higher impact factors must mean higher citation counts. But this is often not the case! This is a pervasive misuse of statistics that needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it occurs. -For individual scientists, complete citation records can be difficult to compare. As a consequence, there have been attempts to find simple statistics that capture the full complexity of a scientist's citation record with a single number. The most notable of these is the h-index, which seems to be gaining in popularity. But even a casual inspection of the h-index and its variants shows that these are naive attempts to understand complicated citation records. While they capture a small amount of information about the distribution of a scientist's citations, they lose crucial information that is essential for the assessment of research.
The validity of statistics such as the impact factor and h-index is neither well understood nor well studied. The connection of these statistics with research quality is sometimes established on the basis of "experience." The justification for relying on them is that they are "readily available." The few studies of these statistics that were done focused narrowly on showing a correlation with some other measure of quality rather than on determining how one can best derive useful information from citation data. We do not dismiss citation statistics as a tool for assessing the quality of research.citation data and statistics can provide some valuable information. We recognize that assessment must be practical, and for this reason easily-derived citation statistics almost surely will be part of the process. But citation data provide only a limited and incomplete view of research quality, and the statistics derived from citation data are sometimes poorly understood and misused. Research is too important to measure its value with only a single coarse tool. We hope those involved in assessment will read both the commentary and the details of this report in order to understand not only the limitations of citation statistics but also how better to use them. If we set high standards for the conduct of science, surely we should set equally high standards for assessing its quality.

0.04909074 = product of:
  0.14727221 = sum of:
    0.14727221 = weight(_text_:citation in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14727221 = score(doc=4002,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.62816036 = fieldWeight in 4002, 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=4002)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Zitationen spielen eine wichtige Rolle im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs, in der Recherchepraxis sowie im Bereich der Bibliometrie. In jüngster Zeit gibt es zunehmend Initiativen, die Zitationen als Open Data zur freien Nachnutzung verfügbar machen. Der Beitrag beschreibt den Stand der Entwicklung dieser Initiativen und zeigt, dass in nächster Zeit eine kritische Masse von Daten entstehen könnte, aus denen sich gerade für Bibliotheken neue Perspektiven ergeben. Als konkrete Möglichkeit zur Partizipation für Bibliotheken wird das DFG-Projekt Linked Open Citation Database (LOC-DB) vorgestellt.

Object

Linked Open Citation Database (LOC-DB)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.048587225 = product of:
  0.14576167 = sum of:
    0.14576167 = weight(_text_:citation in 4206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14576167 = score(doc=4206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.62171745 = fieldWeight in 4206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4206)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.045268476 = product of:
  0.13580543 = sum of:
    0.13580543 = weight(_text_:citation in 3863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13580543 = score(doc=3863,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.57925105 = fieldWeight in 3863, 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=3863)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization (KO) theoretical foundations are still being developed in a continuous process of epistemological, theoretical and methodological consolidation. The remarkable growth of scientific records has stimulated the analysis of this production and the creation of instruments to evaluate the behavior of science became indispensable. We propose the Domain Analysis of KO in North America through the citation analysis of North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO) proceedings (2007 - 2015). We present the citation, co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis to visualize and recognize the researchers that influence the scholarly communication in this domain. The most prolific authors through NASKO conferences are Smiraglia, Tennis, Green, Dousa, Grant Campbell, Pimentel, Beak, La Barre, Kipp and Fox. Regarding their theoretical references, Hjørland, Olson, Smiraglia, and Ranganathan are the authors who most inspired the event's studies. The co-citation network shows the highest frequency is between Olson and Mai, followed by Hjørland and Mai and Beghtol and Mai, consolidating Mai and Hjørland as the central authors of the theoretical references in NASKO. The strongest theoretical proximity in author bibliographic coupling network occurs between Fox and Tennis, Dousa and Tennis, Tennis and Smiraglia, Dousa and Beak, and Pimentel and Tennis, highlighting Tennis as central author, that interconnects the others in relation to KO theoretical references in NASKO. The North American chapter has demonstrated a strong scientific production as well as a high level of concern with theoretical and epistemological questions, gathering researchers from different countries, universities and knowledge areas.

0.04411579 = product of:
  0.13234736 = sum of:
    0.13234736 = product of:
      0.39704207 = sum of:
        0.39704207 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.39704207 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4238747 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja

0.041570734 = product of:
  0.1247122 = sum of:
    0.1247122 = sum of:
      0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06723377 = score(doc=1967,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 1967, 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=1967)
      0.057478424 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057478424 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.041130252 = product of:
  0.06169538 = sum of:
    0.051534534 = weight(_text_:citation in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051534534 = score(doc=3035,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.2198103 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.010160845 = product of:
      0.02032169 = sum of:
        0.02032169 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02032169 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Bill Howe and his colleagues at the University of Washington, in Seattle, decided to find out. First, they trained a computer algorithm to distinguish between various sorts of figures-which they defined as diagrams, equations, photographs, plots (such as bar charts and scatter graphs) and tables. They exposed their algorithm to between 400 and 600 images of each of these types of figure until it could distinguish them with an accuracy greater than 90%. Then they set it loose on the more-than-650,000 papers (containing more than 10m figures) stored on PubMed Central, an online archive of biomedical-research articles. To measure each paper's influence, they calculated its article-level Eigenfactor score-a modified version of the PageRank algorithm Google uses to provide the most relevant results for internet searches. Eigenfactor scoring gives a better measure than simply noting the number of times a paper is cited elsewhere, because it weights citations by their influence. A citation in a paper that is itself highly cited is worth more than one in a paper that is not.
As the team describe in a paper posted (http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04951) on arXiv, they found that figures did indeed matter-but not all in the same way. An average paper in PubMed Central has about one diagram for every three pages and gets 1.67 citations. Papers with more diagrams per page and, to a lesser extent, plots per page tended to be more influential (on average, a paper accrued two more citations for every extra diagram per page, and one more for every extra plot per page). By contrast, including photographs and equations seemed to decrease the chances of a paper being cited by others. That agrees with a study from 2012, whose authors counted (by hand) the number of mathematical expressions in over 600 biology papers and found that each additional equation per page reduced the number of citations a paper received by 22%. This does not mean that researchers should rush to include more diagrams in their next paper. Dr Howe has not shown what is behind the effect, which may merely be one of correlation, rather than causation. It could, for example, be that papers with lots of diagrams tend to be those that illustrate new concepts, and thus start a whole new field of inquiry. Such papers will certainly be cited a lot. On the other hand, the presence of equations really might reduce citations. Biologists (as are most of those who write and read the papers in PubMed Central) are notoriously mathsaverse. If that is the case, looking in a physics archive would probably produce a different result.
Dr Howe and his colleagues do, however, believe that the study of diagrams can result in new insights. A figure showing new metabolic pathways in a cell, for example, may summarise hundreds of experiments. Since illustrations can convey important scientific concepts in this way, they think that browsing through related figures from different papers may help researchers come up with new theories. As Dr Howe puts it, "the unit of scientific currency is closer to the figure than to the paper." With this thought in mind, the team have created a website (viziometrics.org (http://viziometrics.org/) ) where the millions of images sorted by their program can be searched using key words. Their next plan is to extract the information from particular types of scientific figure, to create comprehensive "super" figures: a giant network of all the known chemical processes in a cell for example, or the best-available tree of life. At just one such superfigure per paper, though, the citation records of articles containing such all-embracing diagrams may very well undermine the correlation that prompted their creation in the first place. Call it the ultimate marriage of chart and science.

0.040489353 = product of:
  0.12146806 = sum of:
    0.12146806 = weight(_text_:citation in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12146806 = score(doc=1207,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.5180979 = fieldWeight in 1207, 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=1207)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The speed of scientific communication - the rate of ideas affecting other researchers' ideas - is increasing dramatically. The factor driving this is free, unrestricted access to research papers. Measurements of user activity in mature eprint archives of research papers such as arXiv have shown, for the first time, the degree to which such services support an evolving network of texts commenting on, citing, classifying, abstracting, listing and revising other texts. The Open Citation project has built tools to measure this activity, to build new archives, and has been closely involved with the development of the infrastructure to support open access on which these new services depend. This is the story of the project, intertwined with the concurrent emergence of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI). The paper describes the broad scope of the project's work, showing how it has progressed from early demonstrators of reference linking to produce Citebase, a Web-based citation and impact-ranked search service, and how it has supported the development of the EPrints.org software for building OAI-compliant archives. The work has been underpinned by analysis and experiments on the semantics of documents (digital objects) to determine the features required for formally perfect linking - instantiated as an application programming interface (API) for reference linking - that will enable other applications to build on this work in broader digital library information environments.

Object

Open Citation project

0.040082417 = product of:
  0.12024725 = sum of:
    0.12024725 = weight(_text_:citation in 3065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12024725 = score(doc=3065,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.51289076 = fieldWeight in 3065, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3065)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

OpenURL was originally developed to enable link resolution of citation information in a distributed interoperable way. The initial standard (version 0.1) has been effectively subsumed as an application (named the San Antonio Level 1 profile) of a much more general framework called OpenURL 1.0. We used the framework to create WikiD (Wiki/Data), an application that has little to do with citation link resolvers, but is instead a set of general purpose services for managing arbitrary collections of items. The model for this application is a wiki engine generalized to manage multiple collections of XML records. This article describes WikiD and how it can serve as an example for applications that can be built on the foundation of the OpenURL framework.

0.035292633 = product of:
  0.10587789 = sum of:
    0.10587789 = product of:
      0.31763366 = sum of:
        0.31763366 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31763366 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4238747 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.034642275 = product of:
  0.10392682 = sum of:
    0.10392682 = sum of:
      0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05602814 = score(doc=236,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 236, 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=236)
      0.047898684 = weight(_text_:22 in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047898684 = score(doc=236,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) held its Meeting 117 at the Library Dec. 3-5, 2001, with chair Andrea Stamm (Northwestern University) presiding. Through its actions at this meeting, significant progress was made toward publication of DDC unabridged Edition 22 in mid-2003 and Abridged Edition 14 in early 2004. For Edition 22, the committee approved the revisions to two major segments of the classification: Table 2 through 55 Iran (the first half of the geographic area table) and 900 History and geography. EPC approved updates to several parts of the classification it had already considered: 004-006 Data processing, Computer science; 340 Law; 370 Education; 510 Mathematics; 610 Medicine; Table 3 issues concerning treatment of scientific and technical themes, with folklore, arts, and printing ramifications at 398.2 - 398.3, 704.94, and 758; Table 5 and Table 6 Ethnic Groups and Languages (portions concerning American native peoples and languages); and tourism issues at 647.9 and 790. Reports on the results of testing the approved 200 Religion and 305-306 Social groups schedules were received, as was a progress report on revision work for the manual being done by Ross Trotter (British Library, retired). Revisions for Abridged Edition 14 that received committee approval included 010 Bibliography; 070 Journalism; 150 Psychology; 370 Education; 380 Commerce, communications, and transportation; 621 Applied physics; 624 Civil engineering; and 629.8 Automatic control engineering. At the meeting the committee received print versions of _DC&_ numbers 4 and 5. Primarily for the use of Dewey translators, these cumulations list changes, substantive and cosmetic, to DDC Edition 21 and Abridged Edition 13 for the period October 1999 - December 2001. EPC will hold its Meeting 118 at the Library May 15-17, 2002.