Search (1277 results, page 1 of 64)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Haiqi, Z.: ¬The literature of Qigong : publication patterns and subject headings (1997) 0.27 
    0.2741673 = product of:
  0.34270912 = sum of:
    0.100994654 = weight(_text_:list in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100994654 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.40090302 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.02251335 = weight(_text_:of in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02251335 = score(doc=862,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.171121 = sum of:
      0.12503003 = weight(_text_:headings in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12503003 = score(doc=862,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04859849 = queryNorm
          0.5304626 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.04609097 = weight(_text_:22 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04609097 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04859849 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a bibliometric study of the literature of Qigong: a relaxation technique used to teach patients to control their heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and other involuntary functions through controlles breathing. All articles indexed in the MEDLINE CD-ROM database, between 1965 and 1995 were identified using 'breathing exercises' MeSH term. The articles were analyzed for geographical and language distribution and a ranking exercise enabled a core list of periodicals to be identified. In addition, the study shed light on the changing frequency of the MeSH terms and evaluated the research areas by measuring the information from these respective MeSH headings
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.38-44
  2. Kushkowski, J.D.; Gerhard, K.H.; Dobson, C.: ¬A method for building core journal lists in interdisciplinary subject areas (1998) 0.21 
    0.2082162 = product of:
  0.347027 = sum of:
    0.23084493 = weight(_text_:list in 5122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23084493 = score(doc=5122,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.91634977 = fieldWeight in 5122, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5122)
    0.021008085 = weight(_text_:of in 5122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021008085 = score(doc=5122,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5122, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5122)
    0.09517398 = weight(_text_:subject in 5122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09517398 = score(doc=5122,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 5122, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5122)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Describes a simple method for developing a list of core serials in a particular subject field by analysing article citations in electronic indexes. The Simple Index Method overcomes the difficulties in building a core list for serials in interdisciplinary fields by using multiple indexes which cover various aspects of the subject. This method permits the collection development librarian to develop a core list when standard bibliographies or specific indexing and abstracting tools are lacking and to tailor that list to the needs of the local situation
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 54(1998) no.4, S.477-488
  3. Rotolo, D.; Leydesdorff, L.: Matching Medline/PubMed data with Web of Science: A routine in R language (2015) 0.20 
    0.19670884 = product of:
  0.24588606 = sum of:
    0.12242402 = weight(_text_:list in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12242402 = score(doc=2224,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.48596787 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
    0.027290303 = weight(_text_:of in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027290303 = score(doc=2224,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=2224,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
    0.03788982 = product of:
      0.07577964 = sum of:
        0.07577964 = weight(_text_:headings in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07577964 = score(doc=2224,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2155-2159
  4. Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995) 0.20 
    0.19615915 = product of:
  0.24519894 = sum of:
    0.115422465 = weight(_text_:list in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.115422465 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.45817488 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
    0.025729544 = weight(_text_:of in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025729544 = score(doc=5092,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
    0.07770923 = weight(_text_:subject in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07770923 = score(doc=5092,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
    0.026337698 = product of:
      0.052675396 = sum of:
        0.052675396 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052675396 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science
    Source
    Journal of information; communication; and library science. 2(1995) no.2, S.20-28
  5. Torvik, V.I.; Weeber, M.; Swanson, D.R.; Smalheiser, N.R.: ¬A probabilistic similarity metric for medline mecords : a model for author name disambiguation (2005) 0.15 
    0.14920923 = product of:
  0.18651153 = sum of:
    0.08656685 = weight(_text_:list in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08656685 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34363115 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
    0.020843314 = weight(_text_:of in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020843314 = score(doc=3308,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
    0.03788982 = product of:
      0.07577964 = sum of:
        0.07577964 = weight(_text_:headings in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07577964 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)
    Abstract
    We present a model for estimating the probability that a pair of author names (sharing last name and first initial), appearing an two different Medline articles, refer to the same individual. The model uses a simple yet powerful similarity profile between a pair of articles, based an title, journal name, coauthor names, medical subject headings (MeSH), language, affiliation, and name attributes (prevalence in the literature, middle initial, and suffix). The similarity profile distribution is computed from reference sets consisting of pairs of articles containing almost exclusively author matches versus nonmatches, generated in an unbiased manner. Although the match set is generated automatically and might contain a small proportion of nonmatches, the model is quite robust against contamination with nonmatches. We have created a free, public service ("Author-ity": http://arrowsmith.psych.uic.edu) that takes as input an author's name given an a specific article, and gives as output a list of all articles with that (last name, first initial) ranked by decreasing similarity, with match probability indicated.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.2, S.140-158
  6. Ortega, J.L.; Aguillo, I.F.: Science is all in the eye of the beholder : keyword maps in Google scholar citations (2012) 0.11 
    0.11155081 = product of:
  0.185918 = sum of:
    0.12242402 = weight(_text_:list in 524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12242402 = score(doc=524,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.48596787 = fieldWeight in 524, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=524)
    0.022282438 = weight(_text_:of in 524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022282438 = score(doc=524,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 524, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=524)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=524,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 524, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=524)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This paper introduces a keyword map of the labels used by the scientists registered in the Google Scholar Citations (GSC) database from December 2011. In all, 15,000 random queries were formulated to GSC to obtain a list of 26,682 registered users. From this list a network graph of 6,660 labels was built and classified according to the Scopus Subject Area classes. Results display a detailed label map of the most used (>15 times) tags. The structural analysis shows that the core of the network is occupied by computer science-related disciplines that account for the most used and shared labels. This core is surrounded by clusters of disciplines related or close to computing such as Information Sciences, Mathematics, or Bioinformatics. Classical areas such as Chemistry and Physics are marginalized in the graph. It is suggested that GSC would in the future be an accurate source to map Science because it is based on the labels that scientists themselves use to describe their own research activity.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2370-2377
  7. Deshpande, M.; Rajyalakshmi, D.: Citation study of dissertations in library and information science (1997) 0.11 
    0.106883645 = product of:
  0.1781394 = sum of:
    0.100994654 = weight(_text_:list in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100994654 = score(doc=1594,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.40090302 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
    0.029064612 = weight(_text_:of in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029064612 = score(doc=1594,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=1594,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    A study of 65 dissertations in library and information science, submitted to Nagpur University during the period 1990 to 1994 revealed that the majority of the works are in the field of literature survey and trends in various aspects of library and information science. Citation analyses have been carried out to find the types of cited source materials, subject distribution, authorship pattern and chronological distribution of cited references. The ranked list of periodicals indicated that the 'Annals of library science and documentation' ist the most cited
    Source
    Annals of library science and documentation. 44(1997) no.2, S.41-53
  8. Bensman, S.J.; Leydesdorff, L.: Definition and identification of journals as bibliographic and subject entities : librarianship versus ISI Journal Citation Reports methods and their effect on citation measures (2009) 0.10 
    0.1042505 = product of:
  0.17375082 = sum of:
    0.019297158 = weight(_text_:of in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019297158 = score(doc=2840,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
    0.116563834 = weight(_text_:subject in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116563834 = score(doc=2840,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.67061174 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
    0.03788982 = product of:
      0.07577964 = sum of:
        0.07577964 = weight(_text_:headings in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07577964 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.3215089 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1097-1117
  9. Zhang, L.; Rousseau, R.; Glänzel, W.: Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals : taking similarity between subject fields into account (2016) 0.10 
    0.100251034 = product of:
  0.16708505 = sum of:
    0.07213905 = weight(_text_:list in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07213905 = score(doc=2902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2863593 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
    0.026260108 = weight(_text_:of in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026260108 = score(doc=2902,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
    0.068685904 = weight(_text_:subject in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068685904 = score(doc=2902,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The objective of this article is to further the study of journal interdisciplinarity, or, more generally, knowledge integration at the level of individual articles. Interdisciplinarity is operationalized by the diversity of subject fields assigned to cited items in the article's reference list. Subject fields and subfields were obtained from the Leuven-Budapest (ECOOM) subject-classification scheme, while disciplinary diversity was measured taking variety, balance, and disparity into account. As diversity measure we use a Hill-type true diversity in the sense of Jost and Leinster-Cobbold. The analysis is conducted in 3 steps. In the first part, the properties of this measure are discussed, and, on the basis of these properties it is shown that the measure has the potential to serve as an indicator of interdisciplinarity. In the second part the applicability of this indicator is shown using selected journals from several research fields ranging from mathematics to social sciences. Finally, the often-heard argument, namely, that interdisciplinary research exhibits larger visibility and impact, is studied on the basis of these selected journals. Yet, as only 7 journals, representing a total of 15,757 articles, are studied, albeit chosen to cover a large range of interdisciplinarity, further research is still needed.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.5, S.1257-1265
  10. Mommoh, O.M.: Subject analysis of post-graduate theses in library, archival and information science at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (1995/96) 0.09 
    0.08958166 = product of:
  0.14930277 = sum of:
    0.027791087 = weight(_text_:of in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027791087 = score(doc=673,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
    0.09517398 = weight(_text_:subject in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09517398 = score(doc=673,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
    0.026337698 = product of:
      0.052675396 = sum of:
        0.052675396 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052675396 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a bibliometric study of 111 theses accepted by the Department of Library and Information Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, between 1977 and 1992. The analysis was based on year, type and degree awarded, subject, type of library and geographical area. Concludes that the highest number of submissions was 1991, when 108 MLS theses (97,29%) and 3 PhD theses (2,71%) were accepted. Libraries and readers was the most concetrated subject while the academic library was the most discussed type of library
    Source
    Library focus. 13/14(1995/96), S.22-25
  11. Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T.: Citation analysis with medical subject Headings (MeSH) using the Web of Knowledge : a new routine (2013) 0.08 
    0.08349392 = product of:
  0.13915652 = sum of:
    0.027290303 = weight(_text_:of in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027290303 = score(doc=943,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
    0.053584296 = product of:
      0.10716859 = sum of:
        0.10716859 = weight(_text_:headings in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10716859 = score(doc=943,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.
    Object
    Web of Knowledge
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1076-1080
  12. Leydesdorff, L.; Rotolo, D.; Rafols, I.: Bibliometric perspectives on medical innovation using the medical subject headings of PubMed (2012) 0.08 
    0.08130019 = product of:
  0.13550031 = sum of:
    0.023634095 = weight(_text_:of in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023634095 = score(doc=494,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
    0.053584296 = product of:
      0.10716859 = sum of:
        0.10716859 = weight(_text_:headings in 494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10716859 = score(doc=494,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 494, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Multiple perspectives on the nonlinear processes of medical innovations can be distinguished and combined using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the MEDLINE database. Focusing on three main branches-"diseases," "drugs and chemicals," and "techniques and equipment"-we use base maps and overlay techniques to investigate the translations and interactions and thus to gain a bibliometric perspective on the dynamics of medical innovations. To this end, we first analyze the MEDLINE database, the MeSH index tree, and the various options for a static mapping from different perspectives and at different levels of aggregation. Following a specific innovation (RNA interference) over time, the notion of a trajectory which leaves a signature in the database is elaborated. Can the detailed index terms describing the dynamics of research be used to predict the diffusion dynamics of research results? Possibilities are specified for further integration between the MEDLINE database on one hand, and the Science Citation Index and Scopus (containing citation information) on the other.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2239-2253
  13. Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011) 0.08 
    0.076298065 = product of:
  0.12716344 = sum of:
    0.08656685 = weight(_text_:list in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08656685 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34363115 = fieldWeight in 4192, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4192)
    0.020843314 = weight(_text_:of in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020843314 = score(doc=4192,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 4192, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4192)
    0.019753272 = product of:
      0.039506543 = sum of:
        0.039506543 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039506543 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This is a study of coverage and overlap in second-generation social sciences and humanities journal lists, with attention paid to curation and the judgment of scholarliness. We identify four factors underpinning coverage shortfalls: journal language, country, publisher size, and age. Analyzing these factors turns our attention to the process of assessing a journal as scholarly, which is a necessary foundation for every list of scholarly journals. Although scholarliness should be a quality inherent in the journal, coverage falls short because groups assessing scholarliness have different perspectives on the social sciences and humanities literature. That the four factors shape perspectives on the literature points to a deeper problem of fragmentation within the scholarly community. We propose reducing this fragmentation as the best method to reduce coverage shortfalls.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:21:28
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.284-294
  14. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.08 
    0.07570624 = product of:
  0.12617707 = sum of:
    0.07213905 = weight(_text_:list in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07213905 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2863593 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.019695079 = weight(_text_:of in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019695079 = score(doc=3231,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.034342952 = weight(_text_:subject in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034342952 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100
  15. Dobrota, M.; Dobrota, M.: ARWU ranking uncertainty and sensitivity : what if the award factor was Excluded? (2016) 0.07 
    0.07436156 = product of:
  0.12393594 = sum of:
    0.08656685 = weight(_text_:list in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08656685 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34363115 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.017615816 = weight(_text_:of in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017615816 = score(doc=2652,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
    0.019753272 = product of:
      0.039506543 = sum of:
        0.039506543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039506543 = score(doc=2652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2652, 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=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) uses six university performance indicators, including "Alumni" and "Awards"-the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals. These two indicators raised doubts about the reliability of this ranking method because they are difficult to cope with. Recently, a newsletter was published featuring a reduced ARWU ranking list, leaving out Nobel Prize and Fields Medal indicators: the Alternative Ranking (Excluding Award Factor). We used uncertainty and sensitivity analyses to examine and compare the stability and confidence of the official ARWU ranking and the Alternative Ranking. The results indicate that if the ARWU ranking is reduced to the 4-indicator Alternative Ranking, it shows greater certainty and stability in ranking universities.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:40:53
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.480-482
  16. Zuccala, A.: Author cocitation analysis is to intellectual structure as Web colink analysis is to ... ? (2006) 0.07 
    0.07431086 = product of:
  0.123851426 = sum of:
    0.07213905 = weight(_text_:list in 6008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07213905 = score(doc=6008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2863593 = fieldWeight in 6008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6008)
    0.017369429 = weight(_text_:of in 6008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017369429 = score(doc=6008,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 6008, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6008)
    0.034342952 = weight(_text_:subject in 6008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034342952 = score(doc=6008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 6008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6008)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    Author Cocitation Analysis (ACA) and Web Colink Analysis (WCA) are examined as sister techniques in the related fields of bibliometrics and webometrics. Comparisons are made between the two techniques based on their data retrieval, mapping, and interpretation procedures, using mathematics as the subject in focus. An ACA is carried out and interpreted for a group of participants (authors) involved in an Isaac Newton Institute (2000) workshop-Singularity Theory and Its Applications to Wave Propagation Theory and Dynamical Systems-and compared/contrasted with a WCA for a list of international mathematics research institute home pages on the Web. Although the practice of ACA may be used to inform a WCA, the two techniques do not share many elements in common. The most important departure between ACA and WCA exists at the interpretive stage when ACA maps become meaningful in light of citation theory, and WCA maps require interpretation based on hyperlink theory. Much of the research concerning link theory and motivations for linking is still new; therefore further studies based on colinking are needed, mainly map-based studies, to understand what makes a Web colink structure meaningful.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.11, S.1487-1502
  17. Alger, J.: Can RANK be used to generate a reliable author list for cocitation studies? (1996) 0.07 
    0.070891395 = product of:
  0.17722848 = sum of:
    0.14993818 = weight(_text_:list in 7171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14993818 = score(doc=7171,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.59518665 = fieldWeight in 7171, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7171)
    0.027290303 = weight(_text_:of in 7171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027290303 = score(doc=7171,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 7171, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7171)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a study, conducted at Kansas State University Library, to investigate the possibility of using DIALOG's RANK command to generate lists of prominent authors for use in cocitation studies. The emerging and rapidly expanding field of biodiversity was chosen and an online search of SCISEARCH (DIALOG File 34) was conducted to generate a list of potential authors to be used in the study. The RANK command was used to generate a ranked list of those authors cited in the retrieved documents. Results indicate that RANK does not effectively retrieve a quality set of prominent authors for use in cocitation studies. Highly cited authors of general texts of biodiversity cause the derived author map to present a misaligned picture of specialization within the field. Concludes that, by limiting citations to periodical articles only, a clearer and more accurate picture of the field should emerge
  18. Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023) 0.07 
    0.07077588 = product of:
  0.1179598 = sum of:
    0.07213905 = weight(_text_:list in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07213905 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2863593 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
    0.029359693 = weight(_text_:of in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029359693 = score(doc=992,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
    0.016461061 = product of:
      0.032922123 = sum of:
        0.032922123 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032922123 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:09:06
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.745-758
  19. Egghe, L.; Ravichandra Rao, I.K.: Study of different h-indices for groups of authors (2008) 0.07 
    0.070426665 = product of:
  0.17606667 = sum of:
    0.14993818 = weight(_text_:list in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14993818 = score(doc=1878,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.59518665 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
    0.026128478 = weight(_text_:of in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026128478 = score(doc=1878,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.8, S.1276-1281
  20. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.07 
    0.06940105 = product of:
  0.11566841 = sum of:
    0.07213905 = weight(_text_:list in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07213905 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2863593 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.0270683 = weight(_text_:of in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0270683 = score(doc=4186,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.016461061 = product of:
      0.032922123 = sum of:
        0.032922123 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032922123 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 1238
  • s 19
  • el 17
  • m 15
  • r 2
  • b 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications