-
Xu, L.: Research synthesis methods and library and information science : shared problems, limited diffusion (2016)
0.03
0.029886894 = product of:
0.08966068 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=3057,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 3057, 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=3057)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Interests of researchers who engage with research synthesis methods (RSM) intersect with library and information science (LIS) research and practice. This intersection is described by a summary of conceptualizations of research synthesis in a diverse set of research fields and in the context of Swanson's (1986) discussion of undiscovered public knowledge. Through a selective literature review, research topics that intersect with LIS and RSM are outlined. Topics identified include open access, information retrieval, bias and research information ethics, referencing practices, citation patterns, and data science. Subsequently, bibliometrics and topic modeling are used to present a systematic overview of the visibility of RSM in LIS. This analysis indicates that RSM became visible in LIS in the 1980s. Overall, LIS research has drawn substantially from general and internal medicine, the field's own literature, and business; and is drawn on by health and medical sciences, computing, and business. Through this analytical overview, it is confirmed that research synthesis is more visible in the health and medical literature in LIS; but suggests that, LIS, as a meta-science, has the potential to make substantive contributions to a broader variety of fields in the context of topics related to research synthesis methods.
-
Barnes, C.S.: ¬The construct validity of the h-index (2016)
0.03
0.029886894 = product of:
0.08966068 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=3165,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 3165, 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=3165)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show how bibliometrics would benefit from a stronger programme of construct validity. Design/methodology/approach The value of the construct validity concept is demonstrated by applying this approach to the evaluation of the h-index, a widely used metric. Findings The paper demonstrates that the h-index comprehensively fails any test of construct validity. In simple terms, the metric does not measure what it purports to measure. This conclusion suggests that the current popularity of the h-index as a topic for bibliometric research represents wasted effort, which might have been avoided if researchers had adopted the approach suggested in this paper. Research limitations/implications This study is based on the analysis of a single bibliometric concept. Practical implications The conclusion that the h-index fails any test in terms of construct validity implies that the widespread use of this metric within the higher education sector as a management tool represents poor practice, and almost certainly results in the misallocation of resources. Social implications This paper suggests that the current enthusiasm for the h-index within the higher education sector is misplaced. The implication is that universities, grant funding bodies and faculty administrators should abandon the use of the h-index as a management tool. Such a change would have a significant effect on current hiring, promotion and tenure practices within the sector, as well as current attitudes towards the measurement of academic performance. Originality/value The originality of the paper lies in the systematic application of the concept of construct validity to bibliometric enquiry.
-
Jiang, X.; Zhu, X.; Chen, J.: Main path analysis on cyclic citation networks (2020)
0.03
0.029886894 = product of:
0.08966068 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 5813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=5813,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 5813, 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=5813)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Main path analysis is a famous network-based method for understanding the evolution of a scientific domain. Most existing methods have two steps, weighting citation arcs based on search path counting and exploring main paths in a greedy fashion, with the assumption that citation networks are acyclic. The only available proposal that avoids manual cycle removal is to preprint transform a cyclic network to an acyclic counterpart. Through a detailed discussion about the issues concerning this approach, especially deriving the "de-preprinted" main paths for the original network, this article proposes an alternative solution with two-fold contributions. Based on the argument that a publication cannot influence itself through a citation cycle, the SimSPC algorithm is proposed to weight citation arcs by counting simple search paths. A set of algorithms are further proposed for main path exploration and extraction directly from cyclic networks based on a novel data structure main path tree. The experiments on two cyclic citation networks demonstrate the usefulness of the alternative solution. In the meanwhile, experiments show that publications in strongly connected components may sit on the turning points of main path networks, which signifies the necessity of a systematic way of dealing with citation cycles.
-
Cabanac, G.; Labbé, C.: Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature (2021)
0.03
0.029886894 = product of:
0.08966068 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 410, 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=410)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow-up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2-fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar-based computer-generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen-papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen-papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer-review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish.
-
Tian, W.; Cai, R.; Fang, Z.; Geng, Y.; Wang, X.; Hu, Z.: Understanding co-corresponding authorship : a bibliometric analysis and detailed overview (2024)
0.03
0.029886894 = product of:
0.08966068 = sum of:
0.08966068 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08966068 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.31573826 = fieldWeight in 1196, 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=1196)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship is becoming more and more common. To understand the practice of authorship credit sharing among multiple corresponding authors, we comprehensively analyzed the characteristics of the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorships from the perspectives of countries, disciplines, journals, and articles. This researcher was based on a dataset of nearly 8 million articles indexed in the Web of Science, which provides systematic, cross-disciplinary, and large-scale evidence for understanding the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship for the first time. Our findings reveal that higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship exist in Asian countries, especially in China. From the perspective of disciplines, there is a relatively higher proportion of co-corresponding authorship in the fields of engineering and medicine, while a lower proportion exists in the humanities, social sciences, and computer science fields. From the perspective of journals, high-quality journals usually have higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship. At the level of the article, our findings proved that, compared to articles with a single corresponding author, articles with multiple corresponding authors have a significant citation advantage.
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.03
0.029550051 = product of:
0.08865015 = sum of:
0.08865015 = sum of:
0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048260607 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04038954 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 3. 1.2007 17:22:03
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008)
0.03
0.029550051 = product of:
0.08865015 = sum of:
0.08865015 = sum of:
0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048260607 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04038954 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 6. 4.2008 19:04:22
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006)
0.03
0.029550051 = product of:
0.08865015 = sum of:
0.08865015 = sum of:
0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048260607 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
0.04038954 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04038954 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 26.12.2007 19:22:05
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Shapiro, F.R.: Origins of bibliometrics, citation indexing and citation analysis : the neglected legal literature (1992)
0.03
0.026541978 = product of:
0.079625934 = sum of:
0.079625934 = product of:
0.15925187 = sum of:
0.15925187 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15925187 = score(doc=4262,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.8373461 = fieldWeight in 4262, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4262)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Garfield, E.; Sher, I.H.: New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature literature through citation indexing (1963)
0.03
0.026541978 = product of:
0.079625934 = sum of:
0.079625934 = product of:
0.15925187 = sum of:
0.15925187 = weight(_text_:indexing in 8242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15925187 = score(doc=8242,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.8373461 = fieldWeight in 8242, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8242)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008)
0.02
0.02462504 = product of:
0.07387512 = sum of:
0.07387512 = sum of:
0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04021717 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033657953 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 6.2008 12:54:12
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011)
0.02
0.02462504 = product of:
0.07387512 = sum of:
0.07387512 = sum of:
0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04021717 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.033657953 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033657953 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
-
Bonitz, M.: Ranking of nations and heightened competition in Matthew core journals : two faces of the Matthew effect for countries (2002)
0.02
0.023909515 = product of:
0.07172854 = sum of:
0.07172854 = weight(_text_:systematic in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07172854 = score(doc=818,freq=2.0), product of:
0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.2525906 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The Matthew effect for countries (MEC) consists of the systematic deviation in the number of actual (observed) citations from the number of expected citations: A few countries, expecting a high impact (i.e., a high number of cites per paper) receive a surplus of citations, while the majority of countries, expecting a lower impact, lose citations. The MEC is characterized by numerous facets, but two are the most impressive. The first is the possibility of ranking the science nations by their overall efficiency of scientific performance, thus making the MEC attractive for science policy. The second is the concentration of the MEC in a small number of scientific journals which happen to be the most competitive markets for scientific papers and, therefore, are of interest to librarians as well as scientists. First, by using an appropriate measure for the above-mentioned deviation of the observed from the expected citation rate one can bring the countries under investigation into a rank order, which is almost stable over time and independent of the main scientific fields and the size (i.e., publication output) of the participating countries. Metaphorically speaking, this country rank distribution shows the extent to which a country is using its scientific talents. This is the first facet of the MEC. The second facet appears when one studies the mechanism (i.e., microstructure) of the MEC. Every journal contributes to the MEC. The "atoms" of the MEC are redistributed citations, whose number turns out to be a new and sensitive indicator for any scientific journal. Bringing the journals into a rank order according to this indicator, one finds that only 144 journals out of 2,712 contain half of all redistributed citations, and thus account for half of the MEC. We give a list of these "Matthew core journals" (MCJ) together with a new typology relating the new indicator to the well-known ones, such as publication or citation numbers. It is our hypothesis that the MCJ are forums of the fiercest competition in science--the "Olympic games in science" proceed in this highest class of scientific journals.
-
Schulz-DuBois, E.O.: Arbeiten deutscher Wissenschaftler, die weltweit am häufigsten zitiert wurden (1984)
0.02
0.02144916 = product of:
0.064347476 = sum of:
0.064347476 = product of:
0.12869495 = sum of:
0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12869495 = score(doc=359,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 359, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=359)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Small, H.; Sweeney, E.: Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations (1985)
0.02
0.02144916 = product of:
0.064347476 = sum of:
0.064347476 = product of:
0.12869495 = sum of:
0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12869495 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Garfield, E.: Is citation analysis a legitime evaluation tool? (1979)
0.02
0.02144916 = product of:
0.064347476 = sum of:
0.064347476 = product of:
0.12869495 = sum of:
0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12869495 = score(doc=1086,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Hjerppe, R.: ¬An outline of bibliometrics and citation analysis (1980)
0.02
0.02144916 = product of:
0.064347476 = sum of:
0.064347476 = product of:
0.12869495 = sum of:
0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12869495 = score(doc=1115,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 1115, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1115)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Vinkler, P.: ¬A quasi-quantitative citation model (1987)
0.02
0.02144916 = product of:
0.064347476 = sum of:
0.064347476 = product of:
0.12869495 = sum of:
0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12869495 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Cozzens, S.E.: What do citations count? : the rhetoric-first model (1989)
0.02
0.02144916 = product of:
0.064347476 = sum of:
0.064347476 = product of:
0.12869495 = sum of:
0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12869495 = score(doc=2828,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 2828, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2828)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
-
Peritz, B.C.: Citation characteristics in library science : some further results from a bibliometric survey (1981)
0.02
0.02144916 = product of:
0.064347476 = sum of:
0.064347476 = product of:
0.12869495 = sum of:
0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12869495 = score(doc=4170,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.049684696 = queryNorm
0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 4170, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4170)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Theme
- Citation indexing
