Search (238 results, page 1 of 12)

0.15806948 = product of:
  0.2371042 = sum of:
    0.021071399 = weight(_text_:of in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021071399 = score(doc=994,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.2160328 = sum of:
      0.17609395 = weight(_text_:informetrics in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17609395 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.36125907 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.3530817 = idf(docFreq=76, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049130294 = queryNorm
          0.48744506 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.3530817 = idf(docFreq=76, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.039938856 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039938856 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049130294 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.

Date

26.12.2007 19:22:05

Footnote

Beitrag in einem "Special Issue on Informetrics"

0.109536305 = product of:
  0.16430445 = sum of:
    0.017559499 = weight(_text_:of in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017559499 = score(doc=329,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
    0.14674495 = product of:
      0.2934899 = sum of:
        0.2934899 = weight(_text_:informetrics in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2934899 = score(doc=329,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.36125907 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3530817 = idf(docFreq=76, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.8124084 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              7.3530817 = idf(docFreq=76, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Based on articles published in 1990-2004 in 21 library and information science (LIS) journals, a set of cocitation analyses was performed to study changes in research fronts over the last 15 years, where LIS is at now, and to discuss where it is heading. To study research fronts, here defined as current and influential cocited articles, a citations among documents methodology was applied; and to study changes, the analyses were time-sliced into three 5-year periods. The results show a stable structure of two distinct research fields: informetrics and information seeking and retrieval (ISR). However, experimental retrieval research and user oriented research have merged into one ISR field; and IR and informetrics also show signs of coming closer together, sharing research interests and methodologies, making informetrics research more visible in mainstream LIS research. Furthermore, the focus on the Internet, both in ISR research and in informetrics-where webometrics quickly has become a dominating research area-is an important change. The future is discussed in terms of LIS dependency on technology, how integration of research areas as well as technical systems can be expected to continue to characterize LIS research, and how webometrics will continue to develop and find applications.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.947-957

0.09828733 = product of:
  0.14743099 = sum of:
    0.03003503 = weight(_text_:of in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03003503 = score(doc=1023,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
    0.11739596 = product of:
      0.23479192 = sum of:
        0.23479192 = weight(_text_:informetrics in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23479192 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36125907 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3530817 = idf(docFreq=76, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.6499267 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3530817 = idf(docFreq=76, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Since the 'Science Citation Index' emerged within the system of scientific communication in 1964, an intense controversy about its character has been raging: in what sense can citation analysis be trusted? This debate can be characterized as the confrontation of different perspectives on science. Discusses the citation representation of science: the way the citation creates a new reality of as well as in the world of science; the main features of this reality; and some implications for science and science policy

Footnote

Paper presented at the 6th conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Jerusalem, 16-19 June 1997

0.09409382 = product of:
  0.14114073 = sum of:
    0.023744777 = weight(_text_:of in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023744777 = score(doc=3002,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
    0.11739596 = product of:
      0.23479192 = sum of:
        0.23479192 = weight(_text_:informetrics in 3002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23479192 = score(doc=3002,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36125907 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3530817 = idf(docFreq=76, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.6499267 = fieldWeight in 3002, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3530817 = idf(docFreq=76, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses citation counting measurements, and provides a qualitative analysis of citation analysis (also known as scientometrics or informetrics). Critically evaluates citation indexes, drawing on 2 major investigations carried out by the author. Explains the importance of the phenomenon of non-indexed citedness, and highlights some serious limitations of citation indexes as a basis for measuring the scientific literature and hence making judgements about the respective merits of individual scientists

0.08902551 = product of:
  0.13353826 = sum of:
    0.030816795 = weight(_text_:of in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030816795 = score(doc=2809,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
    0.10272147 = product of:
      0.20544294 = sum of:
        0.20544294 = weight(_text_:informetrics in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20544294 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.36125907 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3530817 = idf(docFreq=76, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.5686859 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3530817 = idf(docFreq=76, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing

0.04965986 = product of:
  0.07448979 = sum of:
    0.021237973 = weight(_text_:of in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021237973 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.05325181 = product of:
      0.10650362 = sum of:
        0.10650362 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10650362 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

0.040228087 = product of:
  0.06034213 = sum of:
    0.013273734 = weight(_text_:of in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013273734 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.047068395 = product of:
      0.09413679 = sum of:
        0.09413679 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09413679 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = 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

0.037515447 = product of:
  0.056273166 = sum of:
    0.022990782 = weight(_text_:of in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022990782 = score(doc=613,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.033282384 = product of:
      0.06656477 = sum of:
        0.06656477 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06656477 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

Abschnitte zu: The origins of citation indexing in science - Citation analysis in sociology, history and philosophy of science - From ASIS to ASIST

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.036480736 = product of:
  0.054721102 = sum of:
    0.028095199 = weight(_text_:of in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028095199 = score(doc=1149,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
    0.026625905 = product of:
      0.05325181 = sum of:
        0.05325181 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05325181 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = 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

0.03643696 = product of:
  0.054655436 = sum of:
    0.026414396 = weight(_text_:of in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026414396 = score(doc=2763,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.02824104 = product of:
      0.05648208 = sum of:
        0.05648208 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05648208 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.858-862

0.03512022 = product of:
  0.05268033 = sum of:
    0.029382661 = weight(_text_:of in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029382661 = score(doc=5269,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
    0.023297668 = product of:
      0.046595335 = sum of:
        0.046595335 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595335 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, 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=5269)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This comparative case study of the diffusion and nondiffusion over time of eight theories in the social sciences uses citation analysis, citation context analysis, content analysis, surveys of editorial review boards, and personal interviews with theorists to develop a model of the theory functions that facilitate theory diffusion throughout specific intellectual communities. Unlike previous work on the diffusion of theories as innovations, this theory functions model differs in several important respects from the findings of previous studies that employed Everett Rogers's classic typology of innovation characteristics that promote diffusion. The model is also presented as a contribution to a more integrated theory of citation.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:20:01

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.330-341

0.031705577 = product of:
  0.047558364 = sum of:
    0.027588936 = weight(_text_:of in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027588936 = score(doc=3692,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
    0.019969428 = product of:
      0.039938856 = sum of:
        0.039938856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039938856 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

Source

Journal of information science. 24(1998) no.6, S.431-435

0.03070492 = product of:
  0.046057377 = sum of:
    0.02275971 = weight(_text_:of in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02275971 = score(doc=6920,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
    0.023297668 = product of:
      0.046595335 = sum of:
        0.046595335 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595335 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Over a 35-year period, Irving H. Sher played a critical role in the development and implementation of the Science Citation Index and other ISI products. Trained as a biochemist, statistician, and linguist, Sher brought a unique combination of talents to ISI as Director of Quality Control and Director of Research and Development. His talents as a teacher and mentor evoked loyalty. He was a particularly inventive but self-taught programmer. In addition to the SCI, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index,

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.14, S.1197-1202

0.03070492 = product of:
  0.046057377 = sum of:
    0.02275971 = weight(_text_:of in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02275971 = score(doc=40,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
    0.023297668 = product of:
      0.046595335 = sum of:
        0.046595335 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046595335 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = 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)

Abstract

Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59

Object

Web of Science

0.030103043 = product of:
  0.045154564 = sum of:
    0.025185138 = weight(_text_:of in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025185138 = score(doc=2064,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 2064, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2064)
    0.019969428 = product of:
      0.039938856 = sum of:
        0.039938856 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039938856 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The paper attempts to provide an alternative method for measuring the importance of scientific papers based on the Google's PageRank. The method is a meaningful extension of the common integer counting of citations and is then experimented for bringing PageRank to the citation analysis in a large citation network. It offers a more integrated picture of the publications' influence in a specific field. We firstly calculate the PageRanks of scientific papers. The distributional characteristics and comparison with the traditionally used number of citations are then analyzed in detail. Furthermore, the PageRank is implemented in the evaluation of research influence for several countries in the field of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology during the time period of 2000-2005. Finally, some advantages of bringing PageRank to the citation analysis are concluded.

Date

31. 7.2008 14:22:05

0.029241432 = product of:
  0.043862145 = sum of:
    0.023892717 = weight(_text_:of in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023892717 = score(doc=1521,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1521, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1521)
    0.019969428 = product of:
      0.039938856 = sum of:
        0.039938856 = weight(_text_:22 in 1521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039938856 = score(doc=1521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1521, 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=1521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Traditional citation analysis has been widely applied to detect patterns of scientific collaboration, map the landscapes of scholarly disciplines, assess the impact of research outputs, and observe knowledge transfer across domains. It is, however, limited, as it assumes all citations are of similar value and weights each equally. Content-based citation analysis (CCA) addresses a citation's value by interpreting each one based on its context at both the syntactic and semantic levels. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of CAA research in terms of its theoretical foundations, methodical approaches, and example applications. In addition, we highlight how increased computational capabilities and publicly available full-text resources have opened this area of research to vast possibilities, which enable deeper citation analysis, more accurate citation prediction, and increased knowledge discovery.

Date

22. 8.2014 16:52:04

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1820-1833

0.028330466 = product of:
  0.042495698 = sum of:
    0.022526272 = weight(_text_:of in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022526272 = score(doc=4215,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
    0.019969428 = product of:
      0.039938856 = sum of:
        0.039938856 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039938856 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.302-310

0.028330466 = product of:
  0.042495698 = sum of:
    0.022526272 = weight(_text_:of in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022526272 = score(doc=201,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.019969428 = product of:
      0.039938856 = sum of:
        0.039938856 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039938856 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.

Date

3. 1.2007 17:22:03

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1263-1274

0.022509266 = product of:
  0.033763897 = sum of:
    0.013794468 = weight(_text_:of in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013794468 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
    0.019969428 = product of:
      0.039938856 = sum of:
        0.039938856 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039938856 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."

Date

6. 4.2008 19:04:22

Object

Web of Science

0.021637736 = product of:
  0.032456603 = sum of:
    0.01914365 = weight(_text_:of in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914365 = score(doc=5171,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.076827854 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049130294 = queryNorm
        0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.013312953 = product of:
      0.026625905 = sum of:
        0.026625905 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026625905 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204592 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049130294 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568