Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Larivière, V."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.04
    0.035126686 = product of:
      0.10538005 = sum of:
        0.10538005 = sum of:
          0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.048260607 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                0.049684696 = queryNorm
              0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
          0.057119444 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.057119444 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.049684696 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  2. Larivière, V.; Archambault, V.; Gingras, Y.; Vignola-Gagné, E.: ¬The place of serials in referencing practices : comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities (2006) 0.03
    0.029886894 = product of:
      0.08966068 = sum of:
        0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08966068 = score(doc=5107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Journal articles constitute the core documents for the diffusion of knowledge in the natural sciences. It has been argued that the same is not true for the social sciences and humanities where knowledge is more often disseminated in monographs that are not indexed in the journal-based databases used for bibliometric analysis. Previous studies have made only partial assessments of the role played by both serials and other types of literature. The importance of journal literature in the various scientific fields has therefore not been systematically characterized. The authors address this issue by providing a systematic measurement of the role played by journal literature in the building of knowledge in both the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences and humanities. Using citation data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) databases from 1981 to 2000 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), the authors quantify the share of citations to both serials and other types of literature. Variations in time and between fields are also analyzed. The results show that journal literature is increasingly important in the natural and social sciences, but that its role in the humanities is stagnant and has even tended to diminish slightly in the 1990s. Journal literature accounts for less than 50% of the citations in several disciplines of the social sciences and humanities; hence, special care should be used when using bibliometric indicators that rely only on journal literature.
  3. Lisée, C.; Larivière, V.; Archambault, E.: Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information : a bibliometric analysis (2008) 0.03
    0.029886894 = product of:
      0.08966068 = sum of:
        0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08966068 = score(doc=2356,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 2356, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2356)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    While several authors have argued that conference proceedings are an important source of scientific knowledge, the extent of their importance has not been measured in a systematic manner. This article examines the scientific impact and aging of conference proceedings compared to those of scientific literature in general. It shows that the relative importance of proceedings is diminishing over time and currently represents only 1.7% of references made in the natural sciences and engineering, and 2.5% in the social sciences and humanities. Although the scientific impact of proceedings is losing ground to other types of scientific literature in nearly all fields, it has grown from 8% of the references in engineering papers in the early 1980s to its current 10%. Proceedings play a particularly important role in computer sciences, where they account for close to 20% of the references. This article also shows that not unexpectedly, proceedings age faster than cited scientific literature in general. The evidence thus shows that proceedings have a relatively limited scientific impact, on average representing only about 2% of total citations, that their relative importance is shrinking, and that they become obsolete faster than the scientific literature in general.
  4. Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V.: Tweeting biomedicine : an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2014) 0.03
    0.029886894 = product of:
      0.08966068 = sum of:
        0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08966068 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.
  5. Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015) 0.02
    0.018106725 = product of:
      0.05432017 = sum of:
        0.05432017 = sum of:
          0.034125403 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.034125403 = score(doc=3809,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                0.049684696 = queryNorm
              0.1794313 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
          0.02019477 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02019477 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.049684696 = queryNorm
              0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, 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=3809)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22