-
Zhao, L.: How librarians used e-resources : an analysis of citations in CCQ (2006)
0.03
0.032088943 = product of:
0.064177886 = sum of:
0.064177886 = product of:
0.12835577 = sum of:
0.12835577 = weight(_text_:notes in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12835577 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27181563 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.47221628 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- How are library professionals who do research about bibliographic organization using electronic resources (e-resources) in their journal articles? Are they keeping pace with the use of e-resources outside the library world? What are the e-resources most used in their research? This article aims to address these and other questions by analyzing bibliographical references/notes in articles in Cataloging and Classification Quarterly (CCQ) for every other year from 1994 to 2004.
-
White, H.D.: Bibliometric overview of information science (2009)
0.03
0.032088943 = product of:
0.064177886 = sum of:
0.064177886 = product of:
0.12835577 = sum of:
0.12835577 = weight(_text_:notes in 3753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12835577 = score(doc=3753,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27181563 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.47221628 = fieldWeight in 3753, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3753)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This entry presents an account of the core concerns of information science through such means as definitional sketches, identification of themes, historical notes, and bibliometric evidence, including a citation-based map of 121 prominent information scientists of the twentieth century. The attempt throughout is to give concrete and pithy descriptions, to provide numerous specific examples, and to take a critical view of certain received language and ideas in library and information science.
-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.03
0.027572967 = product of:
0.055145934 = sum of:
0.055145934 = product of:
0.11029187 = sum of:
0.11029187 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11029187 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.03
0.027572967 = product of:
0.055145934 = sum of:
0.055145934 = product of:
0.11029187 = sum of:
0.11029187 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11029187 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.03
0.027572967 = product of:
0.055145934 = sum of:
0.055145934 = product of:
0.11029187 = sum of:
0.11029187 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11029187 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
-
Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998)
0.02
0.02437129 = product of:
0.04874258 = sum of:
0.04874258 = product of:
0.09748516 = sum of:
0.09748516 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09748516 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:22:35
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.02437129 = product of:
0.04874258 = sum of:
0.04874258 = product of:
0.09748516 = sum of:
0.09748516 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09748516 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.02
0.024126347 = product of:
0.048252694 = sum of:
0.048252694 = product of:
0.09650539 = sum of:
0.09650539 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09650539 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.02
0.024126347 = product of:
0.048252694 = sum of:
0.048252694 = product of:
0.09650539 = sum of:
0.09650539 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09650539 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990)
0.02
0.024126347 = product of:
0.048252694 = sum of:
0.048252694 = product of:
0.09650539 = sum of:
0.09650539 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09650539 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:55
-
Schwartz, C.A.: ¬The rise and fall of uncitedness (1997)
0.02
0.024066707 = product of:
0.048133414 = sum of:
0.048133414 = product of:
0.09626683 = sum of:
0.09626683 = weight(_text_:notes in 7658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09626683 = score(doc=7658,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27181563 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.35416222 = fieldWeight in 7658, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7658)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Large scale uncitedness refers to the significant proportion of articles that do not receive a single citation within 5 years of publication. Notes the brief and troubled history of this area of inquiry, which was prone to miscalculation, misinterpretation, and politicization. Reassesses large scale uncitedness as both a general phenomenon in the scholarly communication system (with data for the physical sciences, social sciences and humanities) and a case study of library and information science, where its rate was reported to be 72%. The study was in 4 parts: examination of the problem of disaggregation in the study of uncitedness; review of the reaction of the popular press and scholars to uncitedness; a case study of uncitedness in C&RL; and a brief summary with suggestions for further research. Data disaggregation was found to be essential in interpreting citation data from tools such as Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index; which do not differentiate between articles and marginal materials (book reviews, letters, obituaries). Stresses the dangers of conclusions from uncitedness data
-
Janssens, F.; Leta, J.; Glänzel, W.; Moor, B. de: Towards mapping library and information science (2006)
0.02
0.024066707 = product of:
0.048133414 = sum of:
0.048133414 = product of:
0.09626683 = sum of:
0.09626683 = weight(_text_:notes in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09626683 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27181563 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.35416222 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In an earlier study by the authors, full-text analysis and traditional bibliometric methods were combined to map research papers published in the journal Scientometrics. The main objective was to develop appropriate techniques of full-text analysis and to improve the efficiency of the individual methods in the mapping of science. The number of papers was, however, rather limited. In the present study, we extend the quantitative linguistic part of the previous studies to a set of five journals representing the field of Library and Information Science (LIS). Almost 1000 articles and notes published in the period 2002-2004 have been selected for this exercise. The optimum solution for clustering LIS is found for six clusters. The combination of different mapping techniques, applied to the full text of scientific publications, results in a characteristic tripod pattern. Besides two clusters in bibliometrics, one cluster in information retrieval and one containing general issues, webometrics and patent studies are identified as small but emerging clusters within LIS. The study is concluded with the analysis of cluster representations by the selected journals.
-
Mingers, J.; Macri, F.; Petrovici, D.: Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of business and management (2012)
0.02
0.024066707 = product of:
0.048133414 = sum of:
0.048133414 = product of:
0.09626683 = sum of:
0.09626683 = weight(_text_:notes in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09626683 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27181563 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.35416222 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper considers the use of the h-index as a measure of a journal's research quality and contribution. We study a sample of 455 journals in business and management all of which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and the Association of Business School's peer review journal ranking list. The h-index is compared with both the traditional impact factors, and with the peer review judgements. We also consider two sources of citation data - the WoS itself and Google Scholar. The conclusions are that the h-index is preferable to the impact factor for a variety of reasons, especially the selective coverage of the impact factor and the fact that it disadvantages journals that publish many papers. Google Scholar is also preferred to WoS as a data source. However, the paper notes that it is not sufficient to use any single metric to properly evaluate research achievements.
-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.02
0.020679725 = product of:
0.04135945 = sum of:
0.04135945 = product of:
0.0827189 = sum of:
0.0827189 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0827189 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.02
0.020679725 = product of:
0.04135945 = sum of:
0.04135945 = product of:
0.0827189 = sum of:
0.0827189 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0827189 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
White, H.D.: Author cocitation analysis and pearson's r (2003)
0.02
0.020055588 = product of:
0.040111177 = sum of:
0.040111177 = product of:
0.08022235 = sum of:
0.08022235 = weight(_text_:notes in 2119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08022235 = score(doc=2119,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27181563 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.29513517 = fieldWeight in 2119, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2119)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In their article "Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient," Ahlgren, Jarneving, and Rousseau fault traditional author cocitation analysis (ACA) for using Pearson's r as a measure of similarity between authors because it fails two tests of stability of measurement. The instabilities arise when rs are recalculated after a first coherent group of authors has been augmented by a second coherent group with whom the first has little or no cocitation. However, AJ&R neither cluster nor map their data to demonstrate how fluctuations in rs will mislead the analyst, and the problem they pose is remote from both theory and practice in traditional ACA. By entering their own rs into multidimensional scaling and clustering routines, I show that, despite r's fluctuations, clusters based an it are much the same for the combined groups as for the separate groups. The combined groups when mapped appear as polarized clumps of points in two-dimensional space, confirming that differences between the groups have become much more important than differences within the groups-an accurate portrayal of what has happened to the data. Moreover, r produces clusters and maps very like those based an other coefficients that AJ&R mention as possible replacements, such as a cosine similarity measure or a chi square dissimilarity measure. Thus, r performs well enough for the purposes of ACA. Accordingly, I argue that qualitative information revealing why authors are cocited is more important than the cautions proposed in the AJ&R critique. I include notes an topics such as handling the diagonal in author cocitation matrices, lognormalizing data, and testing r for significance.
-
White, H.D.: Citation analysis : history (2009)
0.02
0.020055588 = product of:
0.040111177 = sum of:
0.040111177 = product of:
0.08022235 = sum of:
0.08022235 = weight(_text_:notes in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08022235 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27181563 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.29513517 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3425174 = idf(docFreq=574, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- References from publications are at the same time citations to other publications. This entry introduces some of the practical uses of citation data in science and scholarship. At the individual level citations identify and permit the retrieval of specific editions of works, while also suggesting their subject matter, authority, and age. Through citation indexes, retrievals may include not only the earlier items referred to by a given work, but also the later items that cite that given work in turn. Some technical notes on retrieval are included here. Counts of citations received over time, and measures derived from them, reveal the varying impacts of works, authors, journals, organizations, and countries. This has obvious implications for the evaluation of, e.g., library collections, academics, research teams, and science policies. When treated as linkages between pairs of publications, references and citations reveal intellectual ties. Several kinds of links have been defined, such as cocitation, bibliographic coupling, and intercitation. In the aggregate, these links form networks that compactly suggest the intellectual histories of research specialties and disciplines, especially when the networks are visualized through mapping software. Citation analysis is of course not without critics, who have long pointed out imperfections in the data or in analytical techniques. However, the criticisms have generally been met by strong counterarguments from proponents.
-
Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006)
0.01
0.014622775 = product of:
0.02924555 = sum of:
0.02924555 = product of:
0.0584911 = sum of:
0.0584911 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0584911 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, 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=5275)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 16:20:22
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.014622775 = product of:
0.02924555 = sum of:
0.02924555 = product of:
0.0584911 = sum of:
0.0584911 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0584911 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995)
0.01
0.013786484 = product of:
0.027572967 = sum of:
0.027572967 = product of:
0.055145934 = sum of:
0.055145934 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055145934 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17816545 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050877817 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, 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=5092)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science
