Search (2314 results, page 1 of 116)

0.26587605 = product of:
  0.39881408 = sum of:
    0.2417184 = weight(_text_:citation in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2417184 = score(doc=102,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        1.0310018 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
    0.15709569 = sum of:
      0.11645231 = weight(_text_:reports in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11645231 = score(doc=102,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.51714313 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Object

Journal Citation Reports

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

Abstract

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

Theme

Citation indexing

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

Abstract

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

Object

Science Citation Index
Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

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

Abstract

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

Date

10. 1.1999 16:22:37

0.18056244 = product of:
  0.27084365 = sum of:
    0.1629665 = weight(_text_:citation in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1629665 = score(doc=3692,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.69510126 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
    0.10787715 = sum of:
      0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06723377 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

Date

22. 5.1999 19:33:24

Theme

Citation indexing

0.17463975 = product of:
  0.2619596 = sum of:
    0.12623332 = weight(_text_:citation in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12623332 = score(doc=6389,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.5384232 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
    0.13572629 = sum of:
      0.09508291 = weight(_text_:reports in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09508291 = score(doc=6389,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.4222456 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=6389,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

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

Source

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

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

Abstract

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

Object

Journal Citation Reports

Theme

Citation indexing

0.16569339 = product of:
  0.24854007 = sum of:
    0.1943489 = weight(_text_:citation in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1943489 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8289566 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
    0.054191172 = product of:
      0.108382344 = sum of:
        0.108382344 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108382344 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

Theme

Citation indexing

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

Abstract

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

Object

Science Citation Index

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

Abstract

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

Theme

Citation indexing

0.15289819 = product of:
  0.22934729 = sum of:
    0.1901276 = weight(_text_:citation in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1901276 = score(doc=3706,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.8109515 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
    0.039219696 = product of:
      0.07843939 = sum of:
        0.07843939 = weight(_text_:reports in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07843939 = score(doc=3706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.34833482 = fieldWeight in 3706, 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=3706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A CD-LAN is not necessarily the best solution for a library and will not access every electronic publication which a library may want. An alternative for providing concurrent access is to mount journal citation files on a local library system. This involves loading tapes of periodical indexes or other publications onto the local library system and offering access to them through the OPAC. Discusses journal citation modules; online enhancement; the hybrid electronic publications strategy; costs of online database services, standalone CD-ROM, CD-LAN and journal citation modules. Offers a comparative cost analysis via case studies of ABI Inform, Applied Science and Technology Index, Biological Abstracts; INSPEC, Math-Sci, NTIS, and Science Citation Index for each of the options online and by CD-ROM, CD-ROM LAN and a journal citation module on a local library system

Source

Library technology reports. 28(1992) no.3, S.311-328

0.14208907 = product of:
  0.2131336 = sum of:
    0.16831109 = weight(_text_:citation in 8505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16831109 = score(doc=8505,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.71789753 = fieldWeight in 8505, 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=8505)
    0.044822514 = product of:
      0.08964503 = sum of:
        0.08964503 = weight(_text_:reports in 8505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08964503 = score(doc=8505,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.39809695 = fieldWeight in 8505, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Focuses on a way to determine a ranking of science journals according to the number of citations-to and items-published data used by Science Citation Insitute of Citation Reports of the Institute for Science Information to determine journal ranking by impact factor. Applies latent traits theory to bibliometrics

Theme

Citation indexing

0.14208907 = product of:
  0.2131336 = sum of:
    0.16831109 = weight(_text_:citation in 6693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16831109 = score(doc=6693,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.71789753 = fieldWeight in 6693, 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=6693)
    0.044822514 = product of:
      0.08964503 = sum of:
        0.08964503 = weight(_text_:reports in 6693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08964503 = score(doc=6693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.39809695 = fieldWeight in 6693, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Suggests that the literature on the role of chance, error or accident in scientific progress tends to be anecdotal, hagiographic and rarely systematic. In contrast, presents a new approach to this topic, the study of serendipity in scietific discovery. Bases the approach on the study of highly cited papers obtained from the 'Citation Classics' feature of 'Current Contents'. Reports on the analysis of 205 'Citation Classics' commentaries from the 400 most cited papers in the recent history of science, and presents the results of the analysis

0.14199696 = product of:
  0.21299544 = sum of:
    0.14576167 = weight(_text_:citation in 3788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14576167 = score(doc=3788,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.62171745 = fieldWeight in 3788, 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=3788)
    0.06723377 = product of:
      0.13446754 = sum of:
        0.13446754 = weight(_text_:reports in 3788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13446754 = score(doc=3788,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.59714544 = fieldWeight in 3788, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a citation analysis study to evaluate the use of grey literature in the fields of information science, librarianship and documentation

0.14142518 = product of:
  0.21213776 = sum of:
    0.17852087 = weight(_text_:citation in 4951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17852087 = score(doc=4951,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.7614453 = fieldWeight in 4951, 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=4951)
    0.033616886 = product of:
      0.06723377 = sum of:
        0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 4951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06723377 = score(doc=4951,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 4951, 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=4951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Autonomous Citation Indexing (ACI) automates the construction of citation indexes - Lower cost, wider availability: ACI is completely autonomous - no manual effort is required. This should result in lower cost and wider availability. Broader coverage: Because no manual effort is required, there are few barriers to indexing a broader range of literature, compared to indexes like the Science Citation Index that require manual effort. More timely feedback: Conference papers, technical reports, and preprints can be indexed, providing far more timely feedback in many cases (often such publications appear far in advance of corresponding journal publications). Citation context: ACI groups together the context of citations to a given article, allowing researchers to easily see what is being said and why the article was cited. Benefits for both literature search and evaluation. Freely available: Our implementation of ACI is available at no cost for non-commercial use. Several orgnizations have requested the software and expressed interest in providing an index within their domain, or in using ACI within their own digital libraries.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.13387603 = product of:
  0.20081404 = sum of:
    0.13742542 = weight(_text_:citation in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13742542 = score(doc=2624,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.58616084 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
    0.06338861 = product of:
      0.12677722 = sum of:
        0.12677722 = weight(_text_:reports in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12677722 = score(doc=2624,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.5629941 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reports on a user survey of bibliographic citation management software carried out in Jan 95. 176 responses were received. Reports user comments on: EndNote Plus; IBID; Library Master; Papyrus; ProCite; Reference Manager; and gives details of: RMS-3; Cardbox 4.1 and STN Personal File System

0.12654515 = product of:
  0.18981771 = sum of:
    0.08589089 = weight(_text_:citation in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08589089 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.36635053 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
    0.10392682 = sum of:
      0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05602814 = score(doc=2808,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
      0.047898684 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047898684 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish

Date

30. 1.1999 17:22:22

0.12432794 = product of:
  0.1864919 = sum of:
    0.14727221 = weight(_text_:citation in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14727221 = score(doc=785,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.62816036 = fieldWeight in 785, 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=785)
    0.039219696 = product of:
      0.07843939 = sum of:
        0.07843939 = weight(_text_:reports in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07843939 = score(doc=785,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.34833482 = fieldWeight in 785, 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=785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Describes a study using citation analysis to select journals that could be used in the veterinary medical field. The study determines the principal journals to which a veterinary medical library should subscribe, thus obtaining the highest possible utility of materials. By using a database of 105 journals for a period of five years (1982-86), citation data were applied on the Bradford bibliography and Bradford-Zipf distribution to determine the ranking of journals in the field and the "core journals". Reports the results of the study which discovered that the Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa is the most cited journal with 305 citations, and the core journals were eight in number, having 1,067 citations representing 66.2 per cent of the total citations.

0.12149863 = product of:
  0.18224794 = sum of:
    0.13742542 = weight(_text_:citation in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13742542 = score(doc=3675,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.58616084 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
    0.044822514 = product of:
      0.08964503 = sum of:
        0.08964503 = weight(_text_:reports in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08964503 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.39809695 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Predicting relevance of documents from citations is a common problem for information users. The study addresses the relevance prediction process and most specifically, what is viewed by the subject while using the citations. 2 kinds of protocols were collected while 11 subjects viewed 7 citations each. Eye fixations and eye movements between parts of citations were examined. Verbal reports from subjects during this process were used to explore the process of assessment

Theme

Citation indexing

0.120505325 = product of:
  0.18075798 = sum of:
    0.072880834 = weight(_text_:citation in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072880834 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23445003 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04999695 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
    0.10787715 = sum of:
      0.06723377 = weight(_text_:reports in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06723377 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.29857272 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.04064338 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04064338 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1750808 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04999695 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170