-
Stvilia, B.; Hinnant, C.C.; Schindler, K.; Worrall, A.; Burnett, G.; Burnett, K.; Kazmer, M.M.; Marty, P.F.: Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab (2011)
0.06
0.06371069 = product of:
0.12742138 = sum of:
0.12742138 = sum of:
0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09316782 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
0.034253553 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034253553 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The production of scientific knowledge has evolved from a process of inquiry largely based on the activities of individual scientists to one grounded in the collaborative efforts of specialized research teams. This shift brings to light a new question: how the composition of scientific teams affects their production of knowledge. This study employs data from 1,415 experiments conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) between 2005 and 2008 to identify and select a sample of 89 teams and examine whether team diversity and network characteristics affect productivity. The study examines how the diversity of science teams along several variables affects overall team productivity. Results indicate several diversity measures associated with network position and team productivity. Teams with mixed institutional associations were more central to the overall network compared with teams that primarily comprised NHMFL's own scientists. Team cohesion was positively related to productivity. The study indicates that high productivity in teams is associated with high disciplinary diversity and low seniority diversity of team membership. Finally, an increase in the share of senior members negatively affects productivity, and teams with members in central structural positions perform better than other teams.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:19:42
-
Lamb, I.; Larson, C.: Shining a light on scientific data : building a data catalog to foster data sharing and reuse (2016)
0.03
0.027950348 = product of:
0.055900697 = sum of:
0.055900697 = product of:
0.11180139 = sum of:
0.11180139 = weight(_text_:light in 3195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11180139 = score(doc=3195,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.3828525 = fieldWeight in 3195, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3195)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Case, D.O.; Miller, J.B.: Do bibliometricians cite differently from other scholars? (2011)
0.02
0.023291955 = product of:
0.04658391 = sum of:
0.04658391 = product of:
0.09316782 = sum of:
0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09316782 = score(doc=4346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Why authors cite particular documents has been the subject of both speculation and empirical investigation for decades. This article provides a short history of attempts to understand citation motivations and reports a replication of earlier surveys measuring reasons for citations. Comparisons are made among various types of scholars. The present study identified six highly cited articles in the topic area of bibliometrics and surveyed all of the locatable authors who cited those works (n=112). It was thought that bibliometricians, given that this is their area of expertise, might have a heightened level of awareness of their own citation practices, and hence a different pattern of responses. Several reasons indicated by the 56% of the sample who identified themselves as bibliometricians differed in statistically significant ways from nonbibliometricians, and also from earlier samples of scholars in Communication and Psychology. By far the most common reason for citing a document is that it represents a genre. A factor analysis shows that 20 motivations, clustered in seven factors, can represent the most common motivations for citation. The implications of these findings are discussed in the light of recent debates about the role of social factors in citation. Alternative methods for investigating citation behavior are discussed.
-
Sin, S.-C.J.: International coauthorship and citation impact : a bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980-2008 (2011)
0.02
0.023291955 = product of:
0.04658391 = sum of:
0.04658391 = product of:
0.09316782 = sum of:
0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 4753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09316782 = score(doc=4753,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4753, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4753)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- International collaborative papers are increasingly common in journals of many disciplines. These types of papers are often cited more frequently. To identify the coauthorship trends within Library and Information Science (LIS), this study analyzed 7,489 papers published in six leading publications (ARIST, IP&M, JAMIA, JASIST, MISQ, and Scientometrics) over the last three decades. Logistic regression tested the relationships between citations received and seven factors: authorship type, author's subregion, country income level, publication year, number of authors, document type, and journal title. The main authorship type since 1995 was national collaboration. It was also the dominant type for all publications studied except ARIST, and for all regions except Africa. For citation counts, the logistic regression analysis found all seven factors were significant. Papers that included international collaboration, Northern European authors, and authors in high-income nations had higher odds of being cited more. Papers from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Southern Europe had lower odds than North American papers. As discussed in the bibliometric literature, Merton's Matthew Effect sheds light on the differential citation counts based on the authors' subregion. This researcher proposes geographies of invisible colleagues and a geographic scope effect to further investigate the relationships between author geographic affiliation and citation impact.
-
Tuomaala, O.; Järvelin, K.; Vakkari, P.: Evolution of library and information science, 1965-2005 : content analysis of journal articles (2014)
0.02
0.023291955 = product of:
0.04658391 = sum of:
0.04658391 = product of:
0.09316782 = sum of:
0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 1309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09316782 = score(doc=1309,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 1309, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1309)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article first analyzes library and information science (LIS) research articles published in core LIS journals in 2005. It also examines the development of LIS from 1965 to 2005 in light of comparable data sets for 1965, 1985, and 2005. In both cases, the authors report (a) how the research articles are distributed by topic and (b) what approaches, research strategies, and methods were applied in the articles. In 2005, the largest research areas in LIS by this measure were information storage and retrieval, scientific communication, library and information-service activities, and information seeking. The same research areas constituted the quantitative core of LIS in the previous years since 1965. Information retrieval has been the most popular area of research over the years. The proportion of research on library and information-service activities decreased after 1985, but the popularity of information seeking and of scientific communication grew during the period studied. The viewpoint of research has shifted from library and information organizations to end users and development of systems for the latter. The proportion of empirical research strategies was high and rose over time, with the survey method being the single most important method. However, attention to evaluation and experiments increased considerably after 1985. Conceptual research strategies and system analysis, description, and design were quite popular, but declining. The most significant changes from 1965 to 2005 are the decreasing interest in library and information-service activities and the growth of research into information seeking and scientific communication.
-
Kozak, M.; Iefremova, O.; Szkola, J.; Sas, D.: Do researchers provide public or institutional E-mail accounts as correspondence E-mails in scientific articles? (2015)
0.02
0.023291955 = product of:
0.04658391 = sum of:
0.04658391 = product of:
0.09316782 = sum of:
0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 2226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09316782 = score(doc=2226,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 2226, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2226)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Whether one should use a public e-mail account (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo!) or an institutional one (e.g., @wsiz.rzeszow.pl, @medicine.ox.ac.uk) as an address for correspondence is an important aspect of scientific communication. Some authors consider that public e-mail services are unprofessional and insecure, whereas others say that, in a dynamically changing working environment, public e-mail addresses allow readers to contact authors long after they have changed their workplace. To shed light on this issue, we analyzed how often authors of scientific papers provided e-mail addresses that were either public or institution based. We selected from the Web of Science database 1,000 frequently cited and 1,000 infrequently cited articles (all of the latter were noncited articles) published in 2000, 2005, and 2010, and from these we analyzed 26,937 e-mail addresses. The results showed that approximately three fourths of these addresses were institutional, but there was an increasing trend toward using public e-mail addresses over the period studied. No significant differences were found between frequently and infrequently cited papers in this respect. Further research is now needed to access the motivations and perceptions of scholars when it comes to their use of either public or institutional e-mail accounts.
-
Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Lee, K.: Ensemble analysis of topical journal ranking in bioinformatics (2017)
0.02
0.023291955 = product of:
0.04658391 = sum of:
0.04658391 = product of:
0.09316782 = sum of:
0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 3650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09316782 = score(doc=3650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 3650, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3650)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Journal rankings, frequently determined by the journal impact factor or similar indices, are quantitative measures for evaluating a journal's performance in its discipline, which is presently a major research thrust in the bibliometrics field. Recently, text mining was adopted to augment journal ranking-based evaluation with the content analysis of a discipline taking a time-variant factor into consideration. However, previous studies focused mainly on a silo analysis of a discipline using either citation-or content-oriented approaches, and no attempt was made to analyze topical journal ranking and its change over time in a seamless and integrated manner. To address this issue, we propose a journal-time-topic model, an extension of Dirichlet multinomial regression, which we applied to the field of bioinformatics to understand journal contribution to topics in a field and the shift of topic trends. The journal-time-topic model allows us to identify which journals are the major leaders in what topics and the manner in which their topical focus. It also helps reveal an interesting distinct pattern in the journal impact factor of high- and low-ranked journals. The study results shed a new light for understanding topic specific journal rankings and shifts in journals' concentration on a subject.
-
Schmidt, M.: ¬An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in pubmed and the web of science (2018)
0.02
0.023291955 = product of:
0.04658391 = sum of:
0.04658391 = product of:
0.09316782 = sum of:
0.09316782 = weight(_text_:light in 4044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09316782 = score(doc=4044,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2920221 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.31904373 = fieldWeight in 4044, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4044)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Research on scientific misconduct relies increasingly on retractions of articles. An interdisciplinary line of research has been established that empirically assesses the phenomenon of scientific misconduct using information on retractions, and thus aims to shed light on aspects of misconduct that previously were hidden. However, comparability and interpretability of studies are to a certain extent impeded by an absence of standards in corpus delineation and by the fact that the validity of this empirical data basis has never been systematically scrutinized. This article assesses the conceptual and empirical delineation of retractions against related publication types through a comparative analysis of the coverage and consistency of retraction annotation in the databases PubMed and the Web of Science (WoS), which are both commonly used for empicial studies on retractions. The searching and linking approaches of the WoS were subsequently evaluated. The results indicate that a considerable number of PubMed retracted publications and retractions are not labeled as such in the WoS or are indistinguishable from corrections, which is highly relevant for corpus and sample strategies in the WoS.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.02
0.02055213 = product of:
0.04110426 = sum of:
0.04110426 = product of:
0.08220852 = sum of:
0.08220852 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08220852 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = 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
-
Scholarly metrics under the microscope : from citation analysis to academic auditing (2015)
0.01
0.013701421 = product of:
0.027402842 = sum of:
0.027402842 = product of:
0.054805685 = sum of:
0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054805685 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2017 17:12:50
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.013701421 = product of:
0.027402842 = sum of:
0.027402842 = product of:
0.054805685 = sum of:
0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054805685 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016)
0.01
0.013701421 = product of:
0.027402842 = sum of:
0.027402842 = product of:
0.054805685 = sum of:
0.054805685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054805685 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2019 11:22:31
-
Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014)
0.01
0.01211046 = product of:
0.02422092 = sum of:
0.02422092 = product of:
0.04844184 = sum of:
0.04844184 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04844184 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
-
Yan, E.: Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines (2014)
0.01
0.01211046 = product of:
0.02422092 = sum of:
0.02422092 = product of:
0.04844184 = sum of:
0.04844184 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04844184 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1534)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26.10.2014 20:22:22
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.01
0.01211046 = product of:
0.02422092 = sum of:
0.02422092 = product of:
0.04844184 = sum of:
0.04844184 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04844184 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
-
Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011)
0.01
0.011988743 = product of:
0.023977486 = sum of:
0.023977486 = product of:
0.047954973 = sum of:
0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047954973 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, 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=4187)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:53:00
-
Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011)
0.01
0.011988743 = product of:
0.023977486 = sum of:
0.023977486 = product of:
0.047954973 = sum of:
0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047954973 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:02:21
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.01
0.011988743 = product of:
0.023977486 = sum of:
0.023977486 = product of:
0.047954973 = sum of:
0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047954973 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 14:04:09
-
Vieira, E.S.; Cabral, J.A.S.; Gomes, J.A.N.F.: Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions (2014)
0.01
0.011988743 = product of:
0.023977486 = sum of:
0.023977486 = product of:
0.047954973 = sum of:
0.047954973 = weight(_text_:22 in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047954973 = score(doc=1221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1221, 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=1221)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 18:22:21
-
Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010)
0.01
0.010276065 = product of:
0.02055213 = sum of:
0.02055213 = product of:
0.04110426 = sum of:
0.04110426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04110426 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17706616 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050563898 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 28. 9.2010 12:54:22
