Search (196 results, page 1 of 10)

0.2417489 = product of:
  0.36262333 = sum of:
    0.25284323 = weight(_text_:citation in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25284323 = score(doc=1677,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        1.0768464 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
    0.1097801 = product of:
      0.2195602 = sum of:
        0.2195602 = weight(_text_:index in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2195602 = score(doc=1677,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            1.0034711 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Object

Science Citation Index
Social Sciences Citation Index
Arts and Humanities Citation Index

0.21604173 = product of:
  0.3240626 = sum of:
    0.172038 = weight(_text_:citation in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.172038 = score(doc=2352,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.73270106 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
    0.15202458 = sum of:
      0.118104585 = weight(_text_:index in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.118104585 = score(doc=2352,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.5397815 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03392 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

Object

h-index

0.16144581 = product of:
  0.24216871 = sum of:
    0.17878714 = weight(_text_:citation in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17878714 = score(doc=2270,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.7614453 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
    0.06338157 = product of:
      0.12676314 = sum of:
        0.12676314 = weight(_text_:index in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12676314 = score(doc=2270,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.5793543 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Philadelphia, PA USA-London UK-Princeton, NJ February, 25, 2004 - Today, Thomson ISI and NEC Laboratories America (NEC) announced their collaboration to create a comprehensive, multidisciplinary citation index for Web-based scholarly resources. The new Web Citation Index(tm) will combine a suite of technologies developed by NEC, including "autonomous citation indexing" tools from NEC's CiteSeer environment, with the capabilities underlying ISI Web of KnowledgeSM. Thomson ISI editors will carefully monitor the quality of this new resource to ensure all indexed material meets the Thomson ISI high-quality standards. During 2004, Thomson ISI and NEC will operate a pilot of the new resource to receive feedback from the scientific and scholarly community. Full access to the index is projected for early 2005. When fully operational, the new resource will be a unique content collection within ISI Web of Knowledge. It will complement the Thomson ISI Web of Science(r), and provide researchers with a new gateway to discovery 4/3 using citation relationships among Web-based documents, such as pre-prints, proceedings, and "open access" research publications.

Theme

Citation indexing

0.13688228 = product of:
  0.2053234 = sum of:
    0.17544504 = weight(_text_:citation in 1246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17544504 = score(doc=1246,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.7472114 = fieldWeight in 1246, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1246)
    0.02987836 = product of:
      0.05975672 = sum of:
        0.05975672 = weight(_text_:index in 1246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05975672 = score(doc=1246,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.27311024 = fieldWeight in 1246, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1246)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Since their inception in the early 1960s the strength and unique aspect of the ISI citation indexes has been their ability to illustrate the conceptual relationships between scholarly documents. When authors create reference lists for their papers, they make explicit links between their own, current work and the prior work of others. The exact nature of these links may not be expressed in the references themselves, and the motivation behind them may vary (this has been the subject of much discussion over the years), but the links embodied in references do exist. Over the past 30+ years, technology has allowed ISI to make the presentation of citation searching increasingly accessible to users of our products. Citation searching and link tracking moved from being rather cumbersome in print, to being direct and efficient (albeit non-intuitive) online, to being somewhat more user-friendly in CD format. But it is the confluence of the hypertext link and development of Web browsers that has enabled us to present to users a new form of citation product -- the Web of Science -- that is intuitive and makes citation indexing conceptually accessible. A cited reference search begins with a known, important (or at least relevant) document used as the search term. The search allows one to identify subsequent articles that have cited that document. This feature adds the dimension of prospective searching to the usual retrospective searching that all bibliographic indexes provide. Citation indexing is a prime example of a concept before its time - important enough to be used in the meantime by those sufficiently motivated, but just waiting for the right technology to come along to expand its use. While it was possible to follow citation links in earlier citation index formats, this required a level of effort on the part of users that was often just too much to ask of the casual user. In the citation indexes as presented in the Web of Science, the relationship between citing and cited documents is evident to users, and a click of the mouse is all it takes to follow a citation link. Citation connections are established between the published papers being indexed from the 8,000+ journals ISI covers and the items their reference lists contain during the data capture process. It is the standardized capture of each of the references included with these documents that enables us to provide the citation searching feature in all the citation index formats, as well as both internal and external links in the Web of Science.

0.12588398 = product of:
  0.18882596 = sum of:
    0.136008 = weight(_text_:citation in 4941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.136008 = score(doc=4941,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.57925105 = fieldWeight in 4941, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4941)
    0.052817974 = product of:
      0.10563595 = sum of:
        0.10563595 = weight(_text_:index in 4941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10563595 = score(doc=4941,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 4941, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) 2008, we apply mapping techniques previously developed for mapping journal structures in the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices. Citation relations among the 110,718 records were aggregated at the level of 1,157 journals specific to the A&HCI, and the journal structures are questioned on whether a cognitive structure can be reconstructed and visualized. Both cosine-normalization (bottom up) and factor analysis (top down) suggest a division into approximately 12 subsets. The relations among these subsets are explored using various visualization techniques. However, we were not able to retrieve this structure using the Institute for Scientific Information Subject Categories, including the 25 categories that are specific to the A&HCI. We discuss options for validation such as against the categories of the Humanities Indicators of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the panel structure of the European Reference Index for the Humanities, and compare our results with the curriculum organization of the Humanities Section of the College of Letters and Sciences of the University of California at Los Angeles as an example of institutional organization.

Object

Arts and Humanities Citation Index

0.11631148 = product of:
  0.17446722 = sum of:
    0.12164924 = weight(_text_:citation in 7969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12164924 = score(doc=7969,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.5180979 = fieldWeight in 7969, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7969)
    0.052817974 = product of:
      0.10563595 = sum of:
        0.10563595 = weight(_text_:index in 7969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10563595 = score(doc=7969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 7969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=7969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Object

Science Citation Index

0.10827799 = product of:
  0.16241698 = sum of:
    0.136008 = weight(_text_:citation in 5471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.136008 = score(doc=5471,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.57925105 = fieldWeight in 5471, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5471)
    0.026408987 = product of:
      0.052817974 = sum of:
        0.052817974 = weight(_text_:index in 5471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052817974 = score(doc=5471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 5471, 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=5471)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose Chemical databases have had a significant impact on the way scientists search for and use information. The purpose of this paper is to spark informed discussion and fuel debate on the issue of citations to chemical databases. Design/methodology/approach A citation analysis to four major chemical databases was undertaken to examine resource coverage and impact in the scientific literature. Two commercial databases (SciFinder and Reaxys) and two public databases (PubChem and ChemSpider) were analyzed using the "Cited Reference Search" in the Science Citation Index Expanded from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Citations to these databases between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) were evaluated by document types and publication growth curves. A review of the distribution trends of chemical databases in peer-reviewed articles was conducted through a citation count analysis by country, organization, journal and WoS category. Findings In total, 862 scholarly articles containing a citation to one or more of the four databases were identified as only steadily increasing since 2000. The study determined that authors at academic institutions worldwide reference chemical databases in high-impact journals from notable publishers and mainly in the field of chemistry. Originality/value The research is a first attempt to evaluate the practice of citation to major chemical databases in the scientific literature. This paper proposes that citing chemical databases gives merit and recognition to the resources as well as credibility and validity to the scholarly communication process and also further discusses recommendations for citing and referencing databases.

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.

0.09946191 = product of:
  0.14919287 = sum of:
    0.08515447 = weight(_text_:citation in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08515447 = score(doc=6941,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.3626685 = fieldWeight in 6941, 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=6941)
    0.064038396 = product of:
      0.12807679 = sum of:
        0.12807679 = weight(_text_:index in 6941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12807679 = score(doc=6941,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.5853582 = fieldWeight in 6941, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

As the popularity of the recently installed CD-ROM network increased rapidly, and free online searches were offered to users, St. Mary's University Library, Texas, found that the use of printed abstracting and indexing services diminished rapidly. When the library investigated the possibility of cancelling the printed services, they found that it was possible in many cases to do so without impairing the service offered to users. Three database examples are presented: Social Sciences Citation Index; Engineering Index; and Index Medicus; to show how the library were able to effect successful replacements, for different reasons. Factors considered when making decisions about keeping or cancelling printed indexes in favour of electronic formats included: price; ease of access; usage patterns; end results and retrieval characteristics; quality of indexing and content; and ownership

0.09837507 = product of:
  0.1475626 = sum of:
    0.06082462 = weight(_text_:citation in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06082462 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 2952, 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=2952)
    0.086737975 = sum of:
      0.052817974 = weight(_text_:index in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052817974 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 2952, 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=2952)
      0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03392 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2952, 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=2952)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Literaturflut. Medizinische Forschung gibt es nicht nur in Forschungsinstituten mit vielerlei Spezialgebieten wie Vergiftungen, Krebsforschung, Zellbiologie usw., sondern auch in Universitätsklinika, Spezialkliniken und nicht zuletzt in der pharmazeutischen Industrie. Ärzte sind fleißige Schreiber, die auch über Kasuistiken, retrospektive Auswertungen der Krankenakten, prospektive Erhebungen, klinische Studien und natürlich auch über vielerlei Laborforschung, Versuche mit Zellkulturen und über Tierversuche berichten. Hinzu kommt Literatur von Institutionen und Firmen, die Medizingeräte (z.B. Beatmungsgeräte, Narkosegeräte, chirurgisches Instrumentarium, Röntgengeräte usw.) oder Medizinprodukte (z.B. Verbandsmaterial, Prothesen, Nahtmaterial, orthopädische Hilfen) herstellen. Vermutlich ist die Literaturflut in der Medizin größer als in jedem anderen Fachgebiet. Datenbasen und Datenbanken. Die derzeit wichtigsten Datenbasen für die medizinische Literaturdokumentation sind MEDLINE der US National Library of Medicine (siehe Glossar), BIOSIS, hergestellt von BIOSciences Information Service, EMBASE, hergestellt von Elsevier Science B.V. sowie eine ganze Reihe von Datenbasen mit Spezialgebieten wie z.B. TOXLINE. Der wichtigste Anbieter medizinischer Datenbanken in Deutschland ist das Deutsche Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI) in Köln, das 90 Datenbanken mit zusammen über 100 Millionen Dokumenten anbietet. Die Bedeutung der medizinischen Literatur zeigt sich auch am Science Citation Index (SCI). Im SCI sind 2345 medizinische Zeitschriften erfasst. Das sind 39% aller 6073 vom SCI erfassten naturwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften. Nimmt man den Social-SCI mit 1798 Zeitschriften und den Art and Humanities-CI mit 1133 Zeitschriften noch hinzu, so haben die medizinischen Zeitschriften immer noch einen Anteil von 26%. Hinzu kommt, dass medizinische Zeitschriften meist mehr Hefte pro Jahr und dickere Hefte haben als die Zeitschriften anderer Fachgebiete.

Date

5. 4.2013 10:22:15

0.064879596 = product of:
  0.19463879 = sum of:
    0.19463879 = weight(_text_:citation in 3713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19463879 = score(doc=3713,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.8289566 = fieldWeight in 3713, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3713)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Description or citation of some 6000 titles

0.064879596 = product of:
  0.19463879 = sum of:
    0.19463879 = weight(_text_:citation in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19463879 = score(doc=954,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.8289566 = fieldWeight in 954, 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=954)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) is a significant document database on mainland China, which has been built up by the Documentation and Information Centre of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Briefly introduces the background to CSCD, and discusses in detail its development and application, source journals and citation data, data processing methods, subject scope, compilation regulations, stylistic rules and layout, and usage directions for both the printed and CD-ROM editions of CSCD which have been published from the data

Theme

Citation indexing

0.048659697 = product of:
  0.14597909 = sum of:
    0.14597909 = weight(_text_:citation in 3527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14597909 = score(doc=3527,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.62171745 = fieldWeight in 3527, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3527)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses 10 Cs for evaluating Internet resources. These are: content; credibility; critical thinking; copyright; citation; continuity; censorship; connectivity; comparability; and context

0.039730474 = product of:
  0.11919142 = sum of:
    0.11919142 = weight(_text_:citation in 610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11919142 = score(doc=610,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.50763017 = fieldWeight in 610, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=610)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose This study continues a long history of author co-citation analysis of the intellectual structure of information science into the time period of 2011-2020. It also examines changes in this structure from 2006-2010 through 2011-2015 to 2016-2020. Results will contribute to a better understanding of the information science research field. Design/methodology/approach The well-established procedures and techniques for author co-citation analysis were followed. Full records of research articles in core information science journals published during 2011-2020 were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science database. About 150 most highly cited authors in each of the two five-year time periods were selected from this dataset to represent this field, and their co-citation counts were calculated. Each co-citation matrix was input into SPSS for factor analysis, and results were visualized in Pajek. Factors were interpreted as specialties and labeled upon an examination of articles written by authors who load primarily on each factor. Findings The two-camp structure of information science continued to be present clearly. Bibliometric indicators for research evaluation dominated the Knowledge Domain Analysis camp during both fivr-year time periods, whereas interactive information retrieval (IR) dominated the IR camp during 2011-2015 but shared dominance with information behavior during 2016-2020. Bridging between the two camps became increasingly weaker and was only provided by the scholarly communication specialty during 2016-2020. The IR systems specialty drifted further away from the IR camp. The information behavior specialty experienced a deep slump during 2011-2020 in its evolution process. Altmetrics grew to dominate the Webometrics specialty and brought it to a sharp increase during 2016-2020. Originality/value Author co-citation analysis (ACA) is effective in revealing intellectual structures of research fields. Most related studies used term-based methods to identify individual research topics but did not examine the interrelationships between these topics or the overall structure of the field. The few studies that did discuss the overall structure paid little attention to the effect of changes to the source journals on the results. The present study does not have these problems and continues the long history of benchmark contributions to a better understanding of the information science field using ACA.

0.034500558 = product of:
  0.10350167 = sum of:
    0.10350167 = product of:
      0.20700334 = sum of:
        0.20700334 = weight(_text_:index in 4685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20700334 = score(doc=4685,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.94608164 = fieldWeight in 4685, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Briefly notes the online databases that may be used to search for the kind of fiction short stories that appear in magazines: Academic index; Humanities index; Magazine index; Magazine ASAP; Newspaper & periodical abstracts; and Readers' guide to periodical literature

Object

Academic index
Humanities index
Magazine index

0.02987836 = product of:
  0.089635074 = sum of:
    0.089635074 = product of:
      0.17927015 = sum of:
        0.17927015 = weight(_text_:index in 7140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17927015 = score(doc=7140,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 7140, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Object

Internationaler Biographischer Index
World Biographical Index

0.024648389 = product of:
  0.073945165 = sum of:
    0.073945165 = product of:
      0.14789033 = sum of:
        0.14789033 = weight(_text_:index in 8360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14789033 = score(doc=8360,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 8360, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.024648389 = product of:
  0.073945165 = sum of:
    0.073945165 = product of:
      0.14789033 = sum of:
        0.14789033 = weight(_text_:index in 1298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14789033 = score(doc=1298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 1298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Verlagsprospekt mit Hintergrundinformation zu den Biographischen Archiven und zum Internationalen Biographischen Index (einschl. CD-ROM)

0.024395581 = product of:
  0.07318674 = sum of:
    0.07318674 = product of:
      0.14637348 = sum of:
        0.14637348 = weight(_text_:index in 6543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14637348 = score(doc=6543,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.6689808 = fieldWeight in 6543, 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=6543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reviews Gale's Biography and Genealogy Master Index on CD-ROM. It requires an IBM XT, AT, PS/2 or compatible with MS-SOS 3.1 or higher, MS-DOS CD-ROM 2.0, 640 KB RAM and 1 MB disc space. Discusses searching; on screen help and extended searching. Although the CD-ROM has more than 8.8 million citations it does not have adequate speed and convenience because the index has been too literally translated in the software design

0.024329849 = product of:
  0.072989546 = sum of:
    0.072989546 = weight(_text_:citation in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072989546 = score(doc=210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

After modeling expert user needs with regard to intellectual property information, we analyze and compare the main providers in this specific information area (Thomson DIALOG, Esp@cenet by the European Patent Office, Questel-Orbit, and STN International) in terms of system content and system functionality. The key question is whether the main providers are able to satisfy these expert user needs. For patent information, some special retrieval features such as chemical structure search (including Markush search), patent family references and citations search, biosequence search, and basic informetric functionality such as ranking, mapping, and visualization of information flows are realized. Considering the results of information science research, the practice of patent information shows unexhausted improvement opportunities (e.g., the application of bibliographic patent coupling and co-patent-citation for mapping patents, patent assignees, and technology specialties). For trademark search, users need multiple truncated search (realized) as well as phonetic search and image retrieval (not realized yet).