Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.10540827 = product of:
  0.1581124 = sum of:
    0.12642162 = weight(_text_:citation in 5212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12642162 = score(doc=5212,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.5384232 = fieldWeight in 5212, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5212)
    0.031690784 = product of:
      0.06338157 = sum of:
        0.06338157 = weight(_text_:index in 5212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06338157 = score(doc=5212,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 5212, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

By Internet resources Zhang means any electronic file accessible by any Internet protocol. Their usage is determined by an examination of the citations to such sources in a nine-year sample of four print and four electronic LIS journals, by a survey of editors of these journals, and by a survey of scholars with "in press" papers in these journals. Citations were gathered from Social Science Citation Index and manually classed as e-sources by the format used. All authors with "in press" papers were asked about their use and opinion of Internet sources and for any suggestions for improvement. Use of electronic sources is heavy and access is very high. Access and ability explain most usage while satisfaction was not significant. Citation of e-journals increases over the eight years. Authors report under citation of e-journals in favor of print equivalents. Traditional reasons are given for citing and not citing, but additional reasons are also present for e-journals.

0.07333605 = product of:
  0.11000407 = sum of:
    0.086019 = weight(_text_:citation in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086019 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.36635053 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.023985062 = product of:
      0.047970124 = sum of:
        0.047970124 = weight(_text_:22 in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047970124 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Internet based electronic resources are growing dramatically but there have been no empirical studies evaluating the impact of e-sources, as a whole, on formal scholarly communication. reports results of an investigation into how much e-sources have been used in formal scholarly communication, using a case study in the area of Library and Information Science (LIS) during the period 1994 to 1996. 4 citation based indicators were used in the study of the impact measurement. Concludes that, compared with the impact of print sources, the impact of e-sources on formal scholarly communication in LIS is small, as measured by e-sources cited, and does not increase significantly by year even though there is observable growth of these impact across the years. It is found that periodical format is related to the rate of citing e-sources, articles are more likely to cite e-sources than are print priodical articles. However, once authors cite electronic resource, there is no significant difference in the number of references per article by periodical format or by year. Suggests that, at this stage, citing e-sources may depend on authors rather than the periodical format in which authors choose to publish

Date

30. 1.1999 17:22:22

0.035117112 = product of:
  0.10535134 = sum of:
    0.10535134 = weight(_text_:citation in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10535134 = score(doc=5071,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.44868594 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.

0.020274874 = product of:
  0.06082462 = sum of:
    0.06082462 = weight(_text_:citation in 3758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06082462 = score(doc=3758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 3758, 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=3758)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Whereas traditional science maps emphasize citation statistics and static relationships, this paper presents a term-based method to identify and visualize the evolutionary pathways of scientific topics in a series of time slices. First, we create a data preprocessing model for accurate term cleaning, consolidating, and clustering. Then we construct a simulated data streaming function and introduce a learning process to train a relationship identification function to adapt to changing environments in real time, where relationships of topic evolution, fusion, death, and novelty are identified. The main result of the method is a map of scientific evolutionary pathways. The visual routines provide a way to indicate the interactions among scientific subjects and a version in a series of time slices helps further illustrate such evolutionary pathways in detail. The detailed outline offers sufficient statistical information to delve into scientific topics and routines and then helps address meaningful insights with the assistance of expert knowledge. This empirical study focuses on scientific proposals granted by the United States National Science Foundation, and demonstrates the feasibility and reliability. Our method could be widely applied to a range of science, technology, and innovation policy research, and offer insight into the evolutionary pathways of scientific activities.

0.008802996 = product of:
  0.026408987 = sum of:
    0.026408987 = product of:
      0.052817974 = sum of:
        0.052817974 = weight(_text_:index in 663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052817974 = score(doc=663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 663, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all coauthors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of coauthors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.

0.0067839995 = product of:
  0.020351999 = sum of:
    0.020351999 = product of:
      0.040703997 = sum of:
        0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 2360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040703997 = score(doc=2360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2360, 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=2360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports the author's recent research in developing a holistic model for various levels of digital library (DL) evaluation in which perceived important criteria from heterogeneous stakeholder groups are organized and presented. To develop such a model, the author applied a three-stage research approach: exploration, confirmation, and verification. During the exploration stage, a literature review was conducted followed by an interview, along with a card sorting technique, to collect important criteria perceived by DL experts. Then the criteria identified were used for developing an online survey during the confirmation stage. Survey respondents (431 in total) from 22 countries rated the importance of the criteria. A holistic DL evaluation model was constructed using statistical techniques. Eventually, the verification stage was devised to test the reliability of the model in the context of searching and evaluating an operational DL. The proposed model fills two lacunae in the DL domain: (a) the lack of a comprehensive and flexible framework to guide and benchmark evaluations, and (b) the uncertainty about what divergence exists among heterogeneous DL stakeholders, including general users.

0.0067839995 = product of:
  0.020351999 = sum of:
    0.020351999 = product of:
      0.040703997 = sum of:
        0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040703997 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2009 17:49:11

0.005653334 = product of:
  0.01696 = sum of:
    0.01696 = product of:
      0.03392 = sum of:
        0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03392 = score(doc=993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 993, 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=993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:18:34

0.005653334 = product of:
  0.01696 = sum of:
    0.01696 = product of:
      0.03392 = sum of:
        0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03392 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = 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)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2023 18:07:12