Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.14054477 = product of:
  0.21081714 = sum of:
    0.1376304 = weight(_text_:citation in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1376304 = score(doc=196,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.58616084 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
    0.07318674 = product of:
      0.14637348 = sum of:
        0.14637348 = weight(_text_:index in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14637348 = score(doc=196,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.6689808 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

0.1049328 = product of:
  0.15739919 = sum of:
    0.12042661 = weight(_text_:citation in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12042661 = score(doc=7827,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.51289076 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
    0.036972582 = product of:
      0.073945165 = sum of:
        0.073945165 = weight(_text_:index in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073945165 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Reviews the scale, range and consistency of acknowledgement behaviour, in citations, for a number of academic disciplines. The qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests a pervasive and consistent practice in which acknowledgements define a variety of social, cognitive and instrumental relationships between scholars and within and across disciplines. As such they may be used alongside other bibliometric indicators, such as citations, to map networks of influence. Considers the case for using acknowledgements data in the assessment of academic performance and proposes an online acknowledgement index to facilitate this process, perhaps as a logical extension of ISI's citation indexing products

Theme

Citation indexing

0.0917536 = product of:
  0.2752608 = sum of:
    0.2752608 = weight(_text_:citation in 7774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2752608 = score(doc=7774,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        1.1723217 = fieldWeight in 7774, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7774)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.08028441 = product of:
  0.24085322 = sum of:
    0.24085322 = weight(_text_:citation in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24085322 = score(doc=3890,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        1.0257815 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Theme

Citation indexing

0.0725376 = product of:
  0.21761279 = sum of:
    0.21761279 = weight(_text_:citation in 5127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21761279 = score(doc=5127,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.9268017 = fieldWeight in 5127, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5127)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reviews a variety of perspectives on citation. Argues that citations have multiple articulations in that they inform our understanding of the sociocultural, cognitive, and textual aspects of scientific communication. Proposes 2 metatheoretical frameworks as a means of negotiating the interpretative differences which characterize the various discourse communities concerned with citation theory and practice

Footnote

Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'

Theme

Citation indexing

0.0688152 = product of:
  0.2064456 = sum of:
    0.2064456 = weight(_text_:citation in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2064456 = score(doc=1825,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.8792412 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

Theme

Citation indexing

0.064879596 = product of:
  0.19463879 = sum of:
    0.19463879 = weight(_text_:citation in 7773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19463879 = score(doc=7773,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.8289566 = fieldWeight in 7773, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7773)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The degree of similarity netween pairs of cited and citing documents is frequently small. One factor may be the ways in which authors draw upon and cite the work of others. The idea of tiered, or multilayered, citation is proposed as a means of testing this hypothesis. A tentative citation typology is outlined

Theme

Citation indexing

0.057346 = product of:
  0.172038 = sum of:
    0.172038 = weight(_text_:citation in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.172038 = score(doc=4542,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.73270106 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The reciprocal relationship between bibliographic references and citations in the context of the scholarly communication system is examined. Semiotic analysis of referencing behaviours and citation counting reveals the complexity of prevailing sign systems and associated symbolic practices.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.0458768 = product of:
  0.1376304 = sum of:
    0.1376304 = weight(_text_:citation in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1376304 = score(doc=1263,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.58616084 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The accrual of symbolic capital is an important aspect of academic life. Successful capital formation is commonly signified by the trappings of scholarly distinction or acknowledged status as a public intellectual. We consider and compare three potential indices of symbolic capital: citation counts, Web hits, and media mentions. Our Eindings, which are domain specific, suggest that public intellectuals are notable by their absence within the information studies community.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.028384823 = product of:
  0.08515447 = sum of:
    0.08515447 = weight(_text_:citation in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08515447 = score(doc=4709,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.3626685 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.028384823 = product of:
  0.08515447 = sum of:
    0.08515447 = weight(_text_:citation in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08515447 = score(doc=1377,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.3626685 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors describe a large-scale, longitudinal citation analysis of intellectual trading between information studies and cognate disciplines. The results of their investigation reveal the extent to which information studies draws on and, in turn, contributes to the ideational substrates of other academic domains. Their data show that the field has become a more successful exporter of ideas as well as less introverted than was previously the case. In the last decade, information studies has begun to contribute significantly to the literatures of such disciplines as computer science and engineering on the one hand and business and management on the other, while also drawing more heavily on those same literatures.

0.020274874 = product of:
  0.06082462 = sum of:
    0.06082462 = weight(_text_:citation in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06082462 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.020274874 = product of:
  0.06082462 = sum of:
    0.06082462 = weight(_text_:citation in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06082462 = score(doc=1285,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers-both published and unpublished-have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.

0.019918907 = product of:
  0.05975672 = sum of:
    0.05975672 = product of:
      0.11951344 = sum of:
        0.11951344 = weight(_text_:index in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11951344 = score(doc=2361,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.5462205 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors use a novel method - the Author Affiliation Index (AAI) - to determine whether faculty at the top-10 North American library and information science (LIS) programs have a disproportionate presence in the premier journals of the field. The study finds that LIS may be both too small and too interdisciplinary a domain for the AAI to provide reliable results.

0.015829332 = product of:
  0.047487997 = sum of:
    0.047487997 = product of:
      0.09497599 = sum of:
        0.09497599 = weight(_text_:22 in 7192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09497599 = score(doc=7192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7192, 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=7192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2009 11:44:11

0.015829332 = product of:
  0.047487997 = sum of:
    0.047487997 = product of:
      0.09497599 = sum of:
        0.09497599 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09497599 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, 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=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:18:36

0.013567999 = product of:
  0.040703997 = sum of:
    0.040703997 = product of:
      0.081407994 = sum of:
        0.081407994 = weight(_text_:22 in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081407994 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 7297, 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=7297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

26. 4.2015 19:27:22

0.011306668 = product of:
  0.03392 = sum of:
    0.03392 = product of:
      0.06784 = sum of:
        0.06784 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06784 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57