Search (795 results, page 1 of 40)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Small, H.; Sweeney, E.: Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations (1985) 0.24 
    0.23984638 = product of:
  0.35976955 = sum of:
    0.2752608 = weight(_text_:citation in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2752608 = score(doc=1064,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        1.1723217 = fieldWeight in 1064, 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=1064)
    0.084508754 = product of:
      0.16901751 = sum of:
        0.16901751 = weight(_text_:index in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16901751 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.7724724 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  2. Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008) 0.24 
    0.23934811 = product of:
  0.35902217 = sum of:
    0.29498377 = weight(_text_:citation in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.29498377 = score(doc=1735,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        1.2563207 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
    0.064038396 = product of:
      0.12807679 = sum of:
        0.12807679 = weight(_text_:index in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12807679 = score(doc=1735,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.5853582 = fieldWeight in 1735, 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=1735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings - The study suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value - The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation-enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.
    Object
    Science citation index
    Social sciences citation index
    Arts and humanities citation index
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  3. Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014) 0.22 
    0.22452311 = product of:
  0.33678466 = sum of:
    0.2064456 = weight(_text_:citation in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2064456 = score(doc=1350,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.8792412 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
    0.13033907 = sum of:
      0.089635074 = weight(_text_:index in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.089635074 = score(doc=1350,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
      0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040703997 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:12:35
  4. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.22 
    0.21968853 = product of:
  0.3295328 = sum of:
    0.2752608 = weight(_text_:citation in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2752608 = score(doc=6091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        1.1723217 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
    0.054272 = product of:
      0.108544 = sum of:
        0.108544 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108544 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  5. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.22 
    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
  6. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.21 
    0.21491876 = product of:
  0.32237813 = sum of:
    0.12642162 = weight(_text_:citation in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12642162 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.5384232 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
    0.19595651 = sum of:
      0.15525252 = weight(_text_:index in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15525252 = score(doc=590,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.7095612 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040703997 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    "Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
    Object
    H-Index
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  7. Dederke, J.; Hirschmann, B.; Johann, D.: ¬Der Data Citation Index von Clarivate : Eine wertvolle Ressource für die Forschung und für Bibliotheken? (2022) 0.20 
    0.20145741 = product of:
  0.3021861 = sum of:
    0.21070267 = weight(_text_:citation in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21070267 = score(doc=50,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.8973719 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
    0.09148343 = product of:
      0.18296686 = sum of:
        0.18296686 = weight(_text_:index in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18296686 = score(doc=50,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.836226 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Der Data Citation Index (DCI) stellt eine durchsuchbare Sammlung bibliografischer Metadaten zu Forschungsdaten in Datensätzen und Datenstudien ausgewählter Repositorien dar. Der DCI deckt alle wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen ab.
    Object
    Data Citation Index
  8. Tsay, M.-Y.: From Science Citation Index to Journal Citation Reports, amd criteria for journals evaluation (1997) 0.20 
    0.19949517 = product of:
  0.29924273 = sum of:
    0.22529756 = weight(_text_:citation in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22529756 = score(doc=657,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.9595307 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
    0.073945165 = product of:
      0.14789033 = sum of:
        0.14789033 = weight(_text_:index in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14789033 = score(doc=657,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Investigates the characteristics of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) through the study of the Science Citation Index (SCI). Other criteria for evaluating a journal are also discussed. The compilation process of SCI data, and the characteristics, applications and limitations of SCI are studied. A detailed description of JCR is provided including: journal ranking listing, citing journal listing, cited journal listing, subject category listing, source data, impact factor, immediacy index, cited half-life and citing half-life. The applications and limitations of JCR are also explored. In addition to the criteria listed in JCR, the size, circulation and influence of journals are also considered significant criteria fir evaluation purposes
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Journal Citation Reports
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  9. Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003) 0.20 
    0.19764213 = product of:
  0.2964632 = sum of:
    0.14597909 = weight(_text_:citation in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14597909 = score(doc=4460,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.62171745 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.1504841 = sum of:
      0.1097801 = weight(_text_:index in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1097801 = score(doc=4460,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040703997 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.
    Date
    6.11.2005 19:02:22
  10. Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The generation of aggregated journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index (1994) 0.18 
    0.18174893 = product of:
  0.2726234 = sum of:
    0.208585 = weight(_text_:citation in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.208585 = score(doc=8281,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.8883528 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
    0.064038396 = product of:
      0.12807679 = sum of:
        0.12807679 = weight(_text_:index in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12807679 = score(doc=8281,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.5853582 = fieldWeight in 8281, 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=8281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Describes a method for the generation of journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Discusses sources of potential error from this data. Offers strategies to counteract such errors. Analyzes a number of scientometric periodical mappings in relation to mappings from previous studies which have used tape data and/or data from ISI's Journal Citation Reports. Compares the quality of these mappings with the quality of those for previous years in order to demonstrate the use of such mappings as indicators for dynamic developments in the sciences
    Object
    Science Citation Index
  11. Bensman, S.J.: Distributional differences of the impact factor in the sciences versus the social sciences : an analysis of the probabilistic structure of the 2005 journal citation reports (2008) 0.18 
    0.17988479 = product of:
  0.2698272 = sum of:
    0.2064456 = weight(_text_:citation in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2064456 = score(doc=1953,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.8792412 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
    0.06338157 = product of:
      0.12676314 = sum of:
        0.12676314 = weight(_text_:index in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12676314 = score(doc=1953,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.5793543 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper examines the probability structure of the 2005 Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by analyzing the Impact Factor distributions of their journals. The distribution of the SCI journals corresponded with a distribution generally modeled by the negative binomial distribution, whereas the SSCI distribution fit the Poisson distribution modeling random, rare events. Both Impact Factor distributions were positively skewed - the SCI much more so than the SSCI - indicating excess variance. One of the causes of this excess variance was that the journals highest in the Impact Factor in both JCRs tended to class in subject categories well funded by the National Institutes of Health. The main reason for the SCI Impact Factor distribution being more skewed than the SSCI one was that review journals defining disciplinary paradigms play a much more important role in the sciences than in the social sciences.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Social Sciences Citation Index
    Journal Citation Reports
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  12. Shah, T.A.; Gul, S.; Gaur, R.C.: Authors self-citation behaviour in the field of Library and Information Science (2015) 0.18 
    0.17715108 = product of:
  0.26572663 = sum of:
    0.15930942 = weight(_text_:citation in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15930942 = score(doc=2597,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.67849064 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    0.10641721 = sum of:
      0.082673214 = weight(_text_:index in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.082673214 = score(doc=2597,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.37784708 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
      0.023743998 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023743998 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  13. Glänzel, W.: Visual bibliometrics : eine visuelle Oberfläche zur Erweiterung der Nutzungsmöglichkeiten bibliographischer Datenbanken (1996) 0.18 
    0.17623757 = product of:
  0.26435634 = sum of:
    0.19041118 = weight(_text_:citation in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19041118 = score(doc=6110,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.8109515 = fieldWeight in 6110, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6110)
    0.073945165 = product of:
      0.14789033 = sum of:
        0.14789033 = weight(_text_:index in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14789033 = score(doc=6110,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.67591333 = fieldWeight in 6110, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6110)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In einer früheren Studie wurde bereits der 'informationelle Mehrwert' von bibliographischen Datenbanken durch bibliometrische Nutzung untersucht. Im folgenden soll nun eine visuelle Oberfläche vorgestellt werden, die mit Hilfe einer bibliometrischen 'Sekundärdatenbank' einerseits die Nutzungsmöglichkeiten der zugrundeliegenden bibliographischen Datenbanken vor allem in den Bereichen Wissenschaftsinformation, Forschungsevaluation und Wissenschaftspolitik erweitern soll, andererseits aber auch eine Rückkopplung zu den Aufgaben des traditionellen Retrievals erlaubt. Die visuelle Oberfläche 'Visual Bibliometrics' ist eine Erweiterung des CD-Edition des 'Science Citation Index' und des 'Social Science Citation Index'
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Social Sciences Citation Index
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  14. Leydesdorff, L.: Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals (2007) 0.18 
    0.17585745 = product of:
  0.26378617 = sum of:
    0.21896863 = weight(_text_:citation in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21896863 = score(doc=453,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.9325762 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
    0.044817537 = product of:
      0.089635074 = sum of:
        0.089635074 = weight(_text_:index in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.089635074 = score(doc=453,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In addition to science citation indicators of journals like impact and immediacy, social network analysis provides a set of centrality measures like degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality. These measures are first analyzed for the entire set of 7,379 journals included in the Journal Citation Reports of the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index 2004 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), and then also in relation to local citation environments that can be considered as proxies of specialties and disciplines. Betweenness centrality is shown to be an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals, but only in local citation environments and after normalization; otherwise, the influence of degree centrality (size) overshadows the betweenness-centrality measure. The indicator is applied to a variety of citation environments, including policy-relevant ones like biotechnology and nanotechnology. The values of the indicator remain sensitive to the delineations of the set because of the indicator's local character. Maps showing interdisciplinarity of journals in terms of betweenness centrality can be drawn using information about journal citation environments, which is available online.
    Object
    Journal Citation Reports
  15. Hauffe, H.: ¬The role of citation analysis in the history and evaluation of science : Bericht über einen Vortrag von Eugene Garfield (Wien, 26. Mai 2004) (2004) 0.18 
    0.17568044 = product of:
  0.26352066 = sum of:
    0.21070267 = weight(_text_:citation in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21070267 = score(doc=2492,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.8973719 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
    0.052817974 = product of:
      0.10563595 = sum of:
        0.10563595 = weight(_text_:index in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10563595 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 2492, 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=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Object
    Science citation index
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  16. Schreiber, M.: Restricting the h-index to a citation time window : a case study of a timed Hirsch index (2014) 0.18 
    0.17536388 = product of:
  0.26304582 = sum of:
    0.16856214 = weight(_text_:citation in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16856214 = score(doc=1563,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.71789753 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
    0.09448367 = product of:
      0.18896735 = sum of:
        0.18896735 = weight(_text_:index in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18896735 = score(doc=1563,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.86365044 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The h-index has been shown to increase in many cases mostly because of citations to rather old publications. This inertia can be circumvented by restricting the evaluation to a citation time window. Here I report results of an empirical study analyzing the evolution of the thus defined timed h-index in dependence on the length of the citation time window.
    Object
    h-index
  17. Kreider, J.: ¬The correlation of local citation data with citation data from Journal Citation Reports (1999) 0.17 
    0.17495397 = product of:
  0.26243094 = sum of:
    0.24207895 = weight(_text_:citation in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24207895 = score(doc=102,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        1.0310018 = fieldWeight in 102, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=102)
    0.020351999 = product of:
      0.040703997 = sum of:
        0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040703997 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    University librarians continue to face the difficult task of determining which journals remain crucial for their collections during these times of static financial resources and escalating journal costs. One evaluative tool, Journal Citation Reports (JCR), recently has become available on CD-ROM, making it simpler for librarians to use its citation data as input for ranking journals. But many librarians remain unconvinced that the global citation data from the JCR bears enough correspondence to their local situation to be useful. In this project, I explore the correlation between global citation data available from JCR with local citation data generated specifically for the University of British Columbia, for 20 subject fields in the sciences and social sciences. The significant correlations obtained in this study suggest that large research-oriented university libraries could consider substituting global citation data for local citation data when evaluating their journals, with certain cautions.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Object
    Journal Citation Reports
  18. Whitley, K.M.: Analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science citation searches (2002) 0.17 
    0.17484677 = product of:
  0.26227015 = sum of:
    0.22529756 = weight(_text_:citation in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22529756 = score(doc=1255,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.9595307 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
    0.036972582 = product of:
      0.073945165 = sum of:
        0.073945165 = weight(_text_:index in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073945165 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 1255, 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=1255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Chemical Abstracts Service recently unveiled citation searching in Chemical Abstracts. With Chemical Abstracts and Science Citation Index both now available for citation searching, this study compares the duplication and uniqueness of citing references for works of chemistry researchers for the years 1999-2001. The two indexes cover very similar source material, so one would expect the citation results to be very similar. This analysis of SciFinder Scholar and Web of Science shows some important differences as the databases are currently offered. Authors and institutions using citation counts as measures of scientific productivity should take note.
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  19. Wouters, P.: ¬The signs of science (1998) 0.17 
    0.17324477 = product of:
  0.25986716 = sum of:
    0.21761279 = weight(_text_:citation in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21761279 = score(doc=1023,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.9268017 = fieldWeight in 1023, 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=1023)
    0.042254377 = product of:
      0.084508754 = sum of:
        0.084508754 = weight(_text_:index in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084508754 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Since the 'Science Citation Index' emerged within the system of scientific communication in 1964, an intense controversy about its character has been raging: in what sense can citation analysis be trusted? This debate can be characterized as the confrontation of different perspectives on science. Discusses the citation representation of science: the way the citation creates a new reality of as well as in the world of science; the main features of this reality; and some implications for science and science policy
    Theme
    Citation indexing
  20. Tonta, Y.: Scholarly communication and the use of networked information sources (1996) 0.17 
    0.1711738 = product of:
  0.2567607 = sum of:
    0.12642162 = weight(_text_:citation in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12642162 = score(doc=6389,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.5384232 = fieldWeight in 6389, 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=6389)
    0.13033907 = sum of:
      0.089635074 = weight(_text_:index in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.089635074 = score(doc=6389,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 6389, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6389)
      0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 6389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040703997 = score(doc=6389,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6389, 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=6389)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Examines the use of networked information sources in scholarly communication. Networked information sources are defined broadly to cover: documents and images stored on electronic network hosts; data files; newsgroups; listservs; online information services and electronic periodicals. Reports results of a survey to determine how heavily, if at all, networked information sources are cited in scholarly printed periodicals published in 1993 and 1994. 27 printed periodicals, representing a wide range of subjects and the most influential periodicals in their fields, were identified through the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index Journal Citation Reports. 97 articles were selected for further review and references, footnotes and bibliographies were checked for references to networked information sources. Only 2 articles were found to contain such references. Concludes that, although networked information sources facilitate scholars' work to a great extent during the research process, scholars have yet to incorporate such sources in the bibliographies of their published articles
    Source
    IFLA journal. 22(1996) no.3, S.240-245

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 771
  • el 15
  • m 10
  • s 9
  • r 3
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications