Search (132 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.08 
    0.078800134 = product of:
  0.2364004 = sum of:
    0.2364004 = sum of:
      0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12869495 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
      0.10770545 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10770545 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  2. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.06 
    0.058544468 = product of:
  0.1756334 = sum of:
    0.1756334 = sum of:
      0.08043434 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08043434 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.09519906 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09519906 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  3. Harzing, A.-W.; Wal, R. van der: ¬A Google Scholar h-index for journals : an alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business (2009) 0.05 
    0.04781903 = product of:
  0.14345708 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=2630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 2630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2630)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    We propose a new data source (Google Scholar) and metric (Hirsch's h-index) to assess journal impact in the field of economics and business. A systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI Journal Impact Factor for a sample of 838 journals in economics and business shows that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.
  4. Egghe, L.: Sampling and concentration values of incomplete bibliographies (2002) 0.04 
    0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=450,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article studies concentration aspects of bibliographies. More, in particular, we study the impact of incompleteness of such a bibliography on its concentration values (i.e., its degree of inequality of production of its sources). Incompleteness is modeled by sampling in the complete bibliography. The model is general enough to comprise truncation of a bibliography as well as a systematic sample on sources or items. In all cases we prove that the sampled bibliography (or incomplete one) has a higher concentration value than the complete one. These models, hence, shed some light on the measurement of production inequality in incomplete bibliographies.
  5. Harzing, A.-W.: Comparing the Google Scholar h-index with the ISI Journal Impact Factor (2008) 0.04 
    0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Publication in academic journals is a key criterion for appointment, tenure and promotion in universities. Many universities weigh publications according to the quality or impact of the journal. Traditionally, journal quality has been assessed through the ISI Journal Impact Factor (JIF). This paper proposes an alternative metric - Hirsch's h-index - and data source - Google Scholar - to assess journal impact. Using a systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI JIF for a sample of 838 journals in Economics & Business, we argue that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.
  6. Bar-Ilan, J.; Peritz, B.C.: Informetric theories and methods for exploring the Internet : an analytical survey of recent research literature (2002) 0.04 
    0.03586427 = product of:
  0.10759281 = sum of:
    0.10759281 = weight(_text_:systematic in 813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10759281 = score(doc=813,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.3788859 = fieldWeight in 813, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=813)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The Internet, and more specifically the World Wide Web, is quickly becoming one of our main information sources. Systematic evaluation and analysis can help us understand how this medium works, grows, and changes, and how it influences our lives and research. New approaches in informetrics can provide an appropriate means towards achieving the above goals, and towards establishing a sound theory. This paper presents a selective review of research based on the Internet, using bibliometric and informetric methods and tools. Some of these studies clearly show the applicability of bibliometric laws to the Internet, while others establish new definitions and methods based on the respective definitions for printed sources. Both informetrics and Internet research can gain from these additional methods.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. Bensman, S.J.: Garfield and the impact factors (2007) 0.02 
    0.02144916 = product of:
  0.064347476 = sum of:
    0.064347476 = product of:
      0.12869495 = sum of:
        0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12869495 = score(doc=4680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 4680, 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=4680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  16. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.02 
    0.019700034 = product of:
  0.0591001 = sum of:
    0.0591001 = sum of:
      0.032173738 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032173738 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.16916946 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.026926363 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026926363 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  17. He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: Mining a web database for author cocitation analysis (2002) 0.02 
    0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  18. Cronin, B.: Bibliometrics and beyond : some thoughts on web-based citation analysis (2001) 0.02 
    0.018768014 = product of:
  0.05630404 = sum of:
    0.05630404 = product of:
      0.11260808 = sum of:
        0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11260808 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  19. Bordons, M.; Bravo, C.; Barrigón, S.: Time-tracking of the research profile of a drug using bibliometric tools (2004) 0.02 
    0.016418591 = product of:
  0.049255773 = sum of:
    0.049255773 = product of:
      0.09851155 = sum of:
        0.09851155 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09851155 = score(doc=2229,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.51797354 = fieldWeight in 2229, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This study explores the usefulness of bibliometric analyses to detect trends in the research profile of a therapeutic drug, for which Aspirin was selected. A total of 22,144 documents dealing with Aspirin and published in journals covered by MEDLINE during the years 19652001 are studied. The research profile of Aspirin over the 37-year period is analyzed through Aspirin subheadings and McSH indexing terms. Half of the documents had Aspirin as a major indexing term, being the main aspects studied therapeutic uses (28% of the documents), pharmacodynamics (26%), adverse effects (18%), and administration and dosage (10%). A frequency data table crossing indexing terms x years is examined by correspondence analysis to obtain time trends, which are shown graphically in a map. Four time periods with a different distribution of indexing terms are identified through cluster analysis. The indexing term profile of every period is obtained by comparison of the distribution of indexing terms of each cluster with that of the whole period by means of the Chi-2 test. The research profile of the drug tends to change faster with time. The most relevant finding is the expanding therapeutic Profile of Aspirin over the period. The main advantages and limitations of the methodology are pointed out.
  20. Chu, H.: Research in image indexing and retrieval as reflected in the literature (2001) 0.02 
    0.016253578 = product of:
  0.04876073 = sum of:
    0.04876073 = product of:
      0.09752146 = sum of:
        0.09752146 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09752146 = score(doc=6975,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5127677 = fieldWeight in 6975, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Documents relevant to the subject of image indexing and retrieval, obtained from the SCI and SSCI databases, were examined and analyzed. The study confirms that there exist in this rapidly growing field two distinctive research groups employing the content-based and description-based approaches, respectively. However, research in the content-based domain is currently dominating in the field, while the other approach has less visibility. Although researchers using the content-based approach actively communicated with colleagues from the same group, collaboration between the different clusters of scientists should be further promoted and encouraged to advance research and development in image indexing and retrieval.

Authors

Languages

  • e 119
  • d 13

Types

  • a 128
  • m 3
  • el 2
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications