Search (102 results, page 1 of 6)

0.06164916 = product of:
  0.09247374 = sum of:
    0.054783195 = weight(_text_:science in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054783195 = score(doc=4239,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
    0.037690543 = product of:
      0.075381085 = sum of:
        0.075381085 = weight(_text_:index in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075381085 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 4239, 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=4239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Bibliometrics has changed out of all recognition since 1958; becoming established as a field, being taught widely in library and information science schools, and being at the core of a number of science evaluation research groups around the world. This was all made possible by the work of Eugene Garfield and his Science Citation Index. This article reviews the distance that bibliometrics has travelled since 1958 by comparing early bibliometrics with current practice, and by giving an overview of a range of recent developments, such as patent analysis, national research evaluation exercises, visualization techniques, new applications, online citation indexes, and the creation of digital libraries. Webometrics, a modern, fast-growing offshoot of bibliometrics, is reviewed in detail. Finally, future prospects are discussed with regard to both bibliometrics and webometrics.

Source

Information science in transition, Ed.: A. Gilchrist

0.04546697 = product of:
  0.068200454 = sum of:
    0.04374963 = weight(_text_:science in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04374963 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
    0.024450822 = product of:
      0.048901644 = sum of:
        0.048901644 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048901644 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.434-442

0.044035118 = product of:
  0.066052675 = sum of:
    0.039130855 = weight(_text_:science in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039130855 = score(doc=4465,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
    0.026921818 = product of:
      0.053843636 = sum of:
        0.053843636 = weight(_text_:index in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053843636 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1118-1129

0.038425755 = product of:
  0.05763863 = sum of:
    0.019565428 = weight(_text_:science in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019565428 = score(doc=1658,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
    0.0380732 = product of:
      0.0761464 = sum of:
        0.0761464 = weight(_text_:index in 1658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0761464 = score(doc=1658,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 1658, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1658)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time-consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.309-320

0.036394343 = product of:
  0.05459151 = sum of:
    0.027669692 = weight(_text_:science in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027669692 = score(doc=3317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
    0.026921818 = product of:
      0.053843636 = sum of:
        0.053843636 = weight(_text_:index in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053843636 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.48-61

0.03596723 = product of:
  0.053950842 = sum of:
    0.03320363 = weight(_text_:science in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03320363 = score(doc=3211,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
    0.02074721 = product of:
      0.04149442 = sum of:
        0.04149442 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04149442 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Scientists and managers using citation-based indicators to help evaluate research cannot evaluate recent articles because of the time needed for citations to accrue. Reading occurs before citing, however, and so it makes sense to count readers rather than citations for recent publications. To assess this, Mendeley readers and citations were obtained for articles from 2004 to late 2014 in five broad categories (agriculture, business, decision science, pharmacy, and the social sciences) and 50 subcategories. In these areas, citation counts tended to increase with every extra year since publication, and readership counts tended to increase faster initially but then stabilize after about 5 years. The correlation between citations and readers was also higher for longer time periods, stabilizing after about 5 years. Although there were substantial differences between broad fields and smaller differences between subfields, the results confirm the value of Mendeley reader counts as early scientific impact indicators.

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050

0.03411844 = product of:
  0.05117766 = sum of:
    0.033888314 = weight(_text_:science in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033888314 = score(doc=586,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
    0.017289342 = product of:
      0.034578685 = sum of:
        0.034578685 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034578685 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, 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=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.11, S.1631-1644

0.029972691 = product of:
  0.044959035 = sum of:
    0.027669692 = weight(_text_:science in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027669692 = score(doc=4200,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4200, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4200)
    0.017289342 = product of:
      0.034578685 = sum of:
        0.034578685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034578685 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

Footnote

Vgl. auch das Erratum in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.419

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558

0.029972691 = product of:
  0.044959035 = sum of:
    0.027669692 = weight(_text_:science in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027669692 = score(doc=57,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
    0.017289342 = product of:
      0.034578685 = sum of:
        0.034578685 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034578685 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, 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=57)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Webometric network analyses have been used to map the connectivity of groups of websites to identify clusters, important sites or overall structure. Such analyses have mainly been based upon hyperlink counts, the number of hyperlinks between a pair of websites, although some have used title mentions or URL citations instead. The ability to automatically gather hyperlink counts from Yahoo! ceased in April 2011 and the ability to manually gather such counts was due to cease by early 2012, creating a need for alternatives. This article assesses URL citations and title mentions as possible replacements for hyperlinks in both binary and weighted direct link and co-inlink network diagrams. It also assesses three different types of data for the network connections: hit count estimates, counts of matching URLs, and filtered counts of matching URLs. Results from analyses of U.S. library and information science departments and U.K. universities give evidence that metrics based upon URLs or titles can be appropriate replacements for metrics based upon hyperlinks for both binary and weighted networks, although filtered counts of matching URLs are necessary to give the best results for co-title mention and co-URL citation network diagrams.

Date

6. 4.2012 18:16:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.805-816

0.029972691 = product of:
  0.044959035 = sum of:
    0.027669692 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027669692 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.017289342 = product of:
      0.034578685 = sum of:
        0.034578685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034578685 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, 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=2593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Object

Social Science Research Network

0.029972691 = product of:
  0.044959035 = sum of:
    0.027669692 = weight(_text_:science in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027669692 = score(doc=995,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.017289342 = product of:
      0.034578685 = sum of:
        0.034578685 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034578685 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.7, S.791-810

0.029483816 = product of:
  0.044225723 = sum of:
    0.023478512 = weight(_text_:science in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023478512 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4345)
    0.02074721 = product of:
      0.04149442 = sum of:
        0.04149442 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04149442 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.406-418

0.029483816 = product of:
  0.044225723 = sum of:
    0.023478512 = weight(_text_:science in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023478512 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.02074721 = product of:
      0.04149442 = sum of:
        0.04149442 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04149442 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966

0.029483816 = product of:
  0.044225723 = sum of:
    0.023478512 = weight(_text_:science in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023478512 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
    0.02074721 = product of:
      0.04149442 = sum of:
        0.04149442 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04149442 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05104385 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

28. 7.2018 10:00:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.8, S.959-973

0.022135755 = product of:
  0.06640726 = sum of:
    0.06640726 = weight(_text_:science in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06640726 = score(doc=4654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of information science. 30(2005) no.5, S.436-

0.022135755 = product of:
  0.06640726 = sum of:
    0.06640726 = weight(_text_:science in 137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06640726 = score(doc=137,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 137, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=137)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A feature of modern democracies is public mistrust of scientists and the politicization of science policy, e.g., concerning stem cell research and genetically modified food. While the extent of this mistrust is debatable, its political influence is tangible. Hence, science policy researchers and science policy makers need early warning of issues that resonate with a wide public so that they can make timely and informed decisions. In this article, a semi-automatic method for identifying significant public science-related concerns from a corpus of Internet-based RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds is described and shown to be an improvement on a previous similar system because of the introduction of feedbased aggregation. In addition, both the RSS corpus and the concept of public science-related fears are deconstructed, revealing hidden complexity. This article also provides evidence that genetically modified organisms and stem cell research were the two major policyrelevant science concern issues, although mobile phone radiation and software security also generated significant interest.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.3, S.379-390

0.01807377 = product of:
  0.054221306 = sum of:
    0.054221306 = weight(_text_:science in 2908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054221306 = score(doc=2908,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 2908, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2908)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web phenomena, is a field encompassing contributions from information science, computer science, and statistical physics. Its methodology draws especially from bibliometrics. This special issue presents contributions that both push for ward the field and illustrate a wide range of webometric approaches.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1213-1215

0.015975105 = product of:
  0.047925312 = sum of:
    0.047925312 = weight(_text_:science in 1614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047925312 = score(doc=1614,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 1614, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1614)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Open-access online publication has made available an increasingly wide range of document types for scientometric analysis. In this article, we focus on citations in online presentations, seeking evidence of their value as nontraditional indicators of research impact. For this purpose, we searched for online PowerPoint files mentioning any one of 1,807 ISI-indexed journals in ten science and ten social science disciplines. We also manually classified 1,378 online PowerPoint citations to journals in eight additional science and social science disciplines. The results showed that very few journals were cited frequently enough in online PowerPoint files to make impact assessment worthwhile, with the main exceptions being popular magazines like Scientific American and Harvard Business Review. Surprisingly, however, there was little difference overall in the number of PowerPoint citations to science and to the social sciences, and also in the proportion representing traditional impact (about 60%) and wider impact (about 15%). It seems that the main scientometric value for online presentations may be in tracking the popularization of research, or for comparing the impact of whole journals rather than individual articles.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.5, S.805-815

0.015975105 = product of:
  0.047925312 = sum of:
    0.047925312 = weight(_text_:science in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047925312 = score(doc=2375,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 2375, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2375)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary collaboration is a major goal in research policy. This study uses citation analysis to examine diverse subjects in the Web of Science and Scopus to ascertain whether, in general, research published in journals classified in more than one subject is more highly cited than research published in journals classified in a single subject. For each subject, the study divides the journals into two disjoint sets called Multi and Mono. Multi consists of all journals in the subject and at least one other subject whereas Mono consists of all journals in the subject and in no other subject. The main findings are: (a) For social science subject categories in both the Web of Science and Scopus, the average citation levels of articles in Mono and Multi are very similar; and (b) for Scopus subject categories within life sciences, health sciences, and physical sciences, the average citation level of Mono articles is roughly twice that of Multi articles. Hence, one cannot assume that in general, multidisciplinary research will be more highly cited, and the converse is probably true for many areas of science. A policy implication is that, at least in the sciences, multidisciplinary researchers should not be evaluated by citations on the same basis as monodisciplinary researchers.

Object

Web of Science

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.12, S.1973-1984

0.015975105 = product of:
  0.047925312 = sum of:
    0.047925312 = weight(_text_:science in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047925312 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05104385 = queryNorm
        0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In both the social sciences and the humanities, books and monographs play significant roles in research communication. The absence of citations from most books and monographs from the Thomson Reuters/Institute for Scientific Information databases (ISI) has been criticized, but attempts to include citations from or to books in the research evaluation of the social sciences and humanities have not led to widespread adoption. This article assesses whether Google Book Search (GBS) can partially fill this gap by comparing citations from books with citations from journal articles to journal articles in 10 science, social science, and humanities disciplines. Book citations were 31% to 212% of ISI citations and, hence, numerous enough to supplement ISI citations in the social sciences and humanities covered, but not in the sciences (3%-5%), except for computing (46%), due to numerous published conference proceedings. A case study was also made of all 1,923 articles in the 51 information science and library science ISI-indexed journals published in 2003. Within this set, highly book-cited articles tended to receive many ISI citations, indicating a significant relationship between the two types of citation data, but with important exceptions that point to the additional information provided by book citations. In summary, GBS is clearly a valuable new source of citation data for the social sciences and humanities. One practical implication is that book-oriented scholars should consult it for additional citations to their work when applying for promotion and tenure.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1537-1549