Search (221 results, page 2 of 12)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Garfield, E.: From citation indexes to informetrics : is the tail now wagging the dog? (1998) 0.05 
    0.046659857 = product of:
  0.093319714 = sum of:
    0.038297202 = weight(_text_:science in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038297202 = score(doc=2809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
    0.055022508 = weight(_text_:research in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055022508 = score(doc=2809,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.38217562 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing
  2. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? : The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine (2007) 0.05 
    0.04554896 = product of:
  0.09109792 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
    0.07175492 = weight(_text_:research in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07175492 = score(doc=444,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.4983957 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Scientists may seek to report a single definable body of research in more than one publication, that is, in repeated reports of the same work or in fractional reports, in order to disseminate their research as widely as possible in the scientific community. Up to now, however, it has not been examined whether this strategy of "multiple publication" in fact leads to greater reception of the research. In the present study, we investigate the influence of number of articles reporting the results of a single study on reception in the scientific community (total citation counts of an article on a single study). Our data set consists of 96 applicants for a research fellowship from the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF), an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. The applicants reported to us all articles that they had published within the framework of their doctoral research projects. On this single project, the applicants had published from 1 to 16 articles (M = 4; Mdn = 3). The results of a regression model with an interaction term show that the practice of multiple publication of research study results does in fact lead to greater reception of the research (higher total citation counts) in the scientific community. However, reception is dependent upon length of article: the longer the article, the more total citation counts increase with the number of articles. Thus, it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1100-1107
  3. Joint, N.: Bemused by bibliometrics : using citation analysis to evaluate research quality (2008) 0.05 
    0.04554896 = product of:
  0.09109792 = sum of:
    0.019343007 = weight(_text_:science in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019343007 = score(doc=1900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1900, 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=1900)
    0.07175492 = weight(_text_:research in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07175492 = score(doc=1900,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.4983957 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.
  4. Morris, S.A.; Yen, G.; Wu, Z.; Asnake, B.: Time line visualization of research fronts (2003) 0.05 
    0.04530736 = product of:
  0.09061472 = sum of:
    0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027080212 = score(doc=1452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
    0.06353451 = weight(_text_:research in 1452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06353451 = score(doc=1452,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 1452, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1452)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Research fronts, defined as clusters of documents that tend to cite a fixed, time invariant set of base documents, are plotted as time lines for visualization and exploration. Using a set of documents related to the subject of anthrax research, this article illustrates the construction, exploration, and interpretation of time lines for the purpose of identifying and visualizing temporal changes in research activity through journal articles. Such information is useful for presentation to meinbers of expert panels used for technology forecasting.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.413-422
  5. Thelwall, M.; Harries, G.: ¬The connection between the research of a university and counts of links to its Web pages : an investigation based upon a classification of the relationships of pages to the research of the host university (2003) 0.05 
    0.04530736 = product of:
  0.09061472 = sum of:
    0.027080212 = weight(_text_:science in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027080212 = score(doc=1676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
    0.06353451 = weight(_text_:research in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06353451 = score(doc=1676,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.44129837 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Results from recent advances in link metrics have demonstrated that the hyperlink structure of national university systems can be strongly related to the research productivity of the individual institutions. This paper uses a page categorization to show that restricting the metrics to subsets more closely related to the research of the host university can produce even stronger associations. A partial overlap was also found between the effects of applying advanced document models and separating page types, but the best results were achieved through a combination of the two.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.7, S.594-602
  6. Szava-Kovats, E.: Non-indexed indirect-collective citedness (NIICC) (1998) 0.04 
    0.04495518 = product of:
  0.08991036 = sum of:
    0.05360492 = weight(_text_:science in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05360492 = score(doc=175,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 175, 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=175)
    0.03630544 = weight(_text_:research in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03630544 = score(doc=175,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Examines non-indexed indirect collective citedness (NIICC), through a study of 621 articles from 1969 volumes of 2 physics journals, in order to establish the frequency of the phenomenon in the research material. Findings refute the representativity ofd the citation indexes in the field of citedness in the scientific journal literature during the science history period of early Big Science as NIICC was found to be widespread
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.5, S.477-481
  7. Harter, S.P.; Nisonger, T.E.; Weng, A.: Semantic relationsships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals (1993) 0.04 
    0.0447122 = product of:
  0.0894244 = sum of:
    0.038686015 = weight(_text_:science in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038686015 = score(doc=5644,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 5644, 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=5644)
    0.05073839 = weight(_text_:research in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05073839 = score(doc=5644,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.352419 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The act of referencing another author's work in a scholarly or research paper is usually assumed to signal a direct semantic relationship between the citing and cited work. The present article reports a study that examines this assumption directly. The purpose of the research is to investigate the semantic relationship between citing and cited documents for a sample of document pairs in three journals in library and information science: 'Library journal', 'College and research libraries' and 'Journal of the American Society for Information Science'. A macroanalysis, absed on a comparison of the Library of Congress class numbers assigned citing and cited documents, and a microanalysis, based on a comparison of descriptors assigned citing and cited documents by three indexing and abstracting journals, ERIC, LISA and LiLi, were conducted. Both analyses suggest that the subject similarity among pairs of cited and citing documents is typically very small, supporting a subjective, psychological view of relevance and a trial-and-error, heuristic understanding of the information search and research processes. The results of the study have implications for collection development, for an understanding of psychological relevance, and for the results of doing information retrieval using cited references. Several intriguing methodological questions are raised for future research, including the role of indexing depth, specifity, and quality on the measurement of document similarity
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 44(1993) no.9, S.543-552
  8. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.04 
    0.044447944 = product of:
  0.08889589 = sum of:
    0.054710288 = weight(_text_:science in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054710288 = score(doc=613,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
    0.034185596 = product of:
      0.06837119 = sum of:
        0.06837119 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06837119 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671488 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    Abschnitte zu: The origins of citation indexing in science - Citation analysis in sociology, history and philosophy of science - From ASIS to ASIST
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  9. Cawkell, T.: Checking research progress on 'image retrieval by shape matching' using the Web of Science (1998) 0.04 
    0.04296384 = product of:
  0.08592768 = sum of:
    0.054160424 = weight(_text_:science in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054160424 = score(doc=3571,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 3571, 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=3571)
    0.031767257 = weight(_text_:research in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031767257 = score(doc=3571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Discusses the Web of Science database recently introduced by ISI, and which is compiled from 8.000 journals covered in the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Briefly compares the database with the Citation Indexes as provided by the BIDS service at the University of Bath. Explores the characteristics and usefulness of the WoS through a search of it for articles on the topic of image retrieval by shape matching. Suggests that the selection of articles of interest is much easier and far quicker using the WoS than other methods of conducting a search using ISI's data
    Object
    Web of Science
    Science Citation Index
  10. Malanga, G.: Classifying and screening journal literature with citation data (1982) 0.04 
    0.042033907 = product of:
  0.084067814 = sum of:
    0.038686015 = weight(_text_:science in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038686015 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=553)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Object
    Science citation index
    Source
    Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
  11. White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004) 0.04 
    0.041806772 = product of:
  0.05574236 = sum of:
    0.015474406 = weight(_text_:science in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015474406 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
    0.01815272 = weight(_text_:research in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01815272 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.12608525 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
    0.022115234 = product of:
      0.04423047 = sum of:
        0.04423047 = weight(_text_:network in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04423047 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.1968132 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Many authors have posited a social component in citation, the consensus being that the citers and citees often have interpersonal as well as intellectual ties. Evidence for this belief has been rather meager, however, in part because social networks researchers have lacked bibliometric data (e.g., pairwise citation counts from online databases), and citation analysts have lacked sociometric data (e.g., pairwise measures of acquaintanceship). In 1997 Nazer extensively measured personal relationships and communication behaviors in what we call "Globenet," an international group of 16 researchers from seven disciplines that was established in 1993 to study human development. Since Globenet's membership is known, it was possible during 2002 to obtain citation records for all members in databases of the Institute for Scientific Information. This permitted examination of how members cited each other (intercited) in journal articles over the past three decades and in a 1999 book to which they all contributed. It was also possible to explore links between the intercitation data and the social and communication data. Using network-analytic techniques, we look at the growth of intercitation over time, the extent to which it follows disciplinary or interdisciplinary lines, whether it covaries with degrees of acquaintanceship, whether it reflects Globenet's organizational structure, whether it is associated with particular in-group communication patterns, and whether it is related to the cocitation of Globenet members. Results show cocitation to be a powerful predictor of intercitation in the journal articles, while being an editor or co-author is an important predictor in the book. Intellectual ties based an shared content did better as predictors than content-neutral social ties like friendship. However, interciters in Globenet communicated more than did noninterciters.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.111-126
  12. Leydesdorff, L.: Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in Journal Citation Reports (2004) 0.04 
    0.039869837 = product of:
  0.079739675 = sum of:
    0.032826174 = weight(_text_:science in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032826174 = score(doc=4427,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4427, 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=4427)
    0.046913497 = product of:
      0.093826994 = sum of:
        0.093826994 = weight(_text_:network in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093826994 = score(doc=4427,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.41750383 = fieldWeight in 4427, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix derived from Journal Citation Reports 2001 can be decomposed into a unique subject classification using the graph-analytical algorithm of bi-connected components. This technique was recently incorporated in software tools for social network analysis. The matrix can be assessed in terms of its decomposability using articulation points which indicate overlap between the components. The articulation points of this set did not exhibit a next-order network of "general science" journals. However, the clusters differ in size and in terms of the internal density of their relations. A full classification of the journals is provided in the Appendix. The clusters can also be extracted and mapped for the visualization.
  13. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google book search : citation analysis for social science and the humanities (2009) 0.04 
    0.03973514 = product of:
  0.07947028 = sum of:
    0.0473805 = weight(_text_:science in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0473805 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = 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)
    0.032089777 = weight(_text_:research in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032089777 = score(doc=2946,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  14. Wilson, C.S.; Tenopir, C.: Local citation analysis, publishing and reading patterns : using multiple methods to evaluate faculty use of an academic library's research collection (2008) 0.04 
    0.039442435 = product of:
  0.07888487 = sum of:
    0.033503074 = weight(_text_:science in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033503074 = score(doc=1960,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 1960, 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=1960)
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=1960,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1393-1408
  15. Robinson-García, N.; Jiménez-Contreras, E.; Torres-Salinas, D.: Analyzing data citation practices using the data citation index : a study of backup strategies of end users (2016) 0.04 
    0.039442435 = product of:
  0.07888487 = sum of:
    0.033503074 = weight(_text_:science in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033503074 = score(doc=3225,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3225, 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=3225)
    0.0453818 = weight(_text_:research in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0453818 = score(doc=3225,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.31521314 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    We present an analysis of data citation practices based on the Data Citation Index (DCI) (Thomson Reuters). This database launched in 2012 links data sets and data studies with citations received from the other citation indexes. The DCI harvests citations to research data from papers indexed in the Web of Science. It relies on the information provided by the data repository. The findings of this study show that data citation practices are far from common in most research fields. Some differences have been reported on the way researchers cite data: Although in the areas of science and engineering & technology data sets were the most cited, in the social sciences and arts & humanities data studies play a greater role. A total of 88.1% of the records have received no citation, but some repositories show very low uncitedness rates. Although data citation practices are rare in most fields, they have expanded in disciplines such as crystallography and genomics. We conclude by emphasizing the role that the DCI could play in encouraging the consistent, standardized citation of research data-a role that would enhance their value as a means of following the research process from data collection to publication.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.2964-2975
  16. Steele, T.W.; Stier, J.C.: ¬The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences : a forestry case study (2000) 0.04 
    0.03935571 = product of:
  0.07871142 = sum of:
    0.04020369 = weight(_text_:science in 4592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04020369 = score(doc=4592,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 4592, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4592)
    0.03850773 = weight(_text_:research in 4592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03850773 = score(doc=4592,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 4592, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4592)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Interdisciplinary research has been identified as a critical means of addressing some of our planet's most urgent environmental problems. Yet relatively little is known about the processes and impact of interdisciplinary approaches to environmental sciences. This study used citation analysis and ordinary least squares regression to investigate the relationship between an article's citation rate and its degree of interdisciplinarity in one area of environmental science; viz., forestry. 3 types of interdisciplinarity were recognized - authorspip, subject matter, and cited literature - and each was quantified using Brillouin's diversity index. Data consisted of more than 750 articles published in the journal 'Forest Science' during the 10year period 1985-1994. The results indicate that borrowing was the most influencial method of interdisciplinary information transfer. Articles that drew information from a diverse set of journals were cited with greater frequency than articles having smaller or more narrowly focused bibliographies. This finding provides empirical evidence that interdisciplinary methods have made a measurable and positive impact on the forestry literature
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.476-484
  17. Braun, T.; Glanzel, W.; Grupp, H.: ¬The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 scientific areas, 1989-1993 : Pt.1: All fields combined, mathematics, engineering, chemistry and physics (1995) 0.04 
    0.03933578 = product of:
  0.07867156 = sum of:
    0.046904307 = weight(_text_:science in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046904307 = score(doc=761,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
    0.031767257 = weight(_text_:research in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031767257 = score(doc=761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Attempts some new approaches to the presentation of bibliometric macro level indicators. Mathematics, engineering, physics and chemistry subfields are assigned to 13 science areas. Each science area then appears on 1 table (left page) and 2 graphs (right page). The 1st graph shows the main citation rates with respect to the world average on a relational chart. The countries are represented by letter codes that can be found in the corresponding table on the facing page. The 2nd graph visualizes the countries' relative research activity in the given science areas as compared to the world standard
  18. Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Abdoli, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: In which fields are citations indicators of research quality? (2023) 0.04 
    0.039046768 = product of:
  0.078093536 = sum of:
    0.027355144 = weight(_text_:science in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027355144 = score(doc=1033,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 1033, 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=1033)
    0.05073839 = weight(_text_:research in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05073839 = score(doc=1033,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.352419 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.8, S.941-953
  19. Johnson, B.; Oppenheim, C.: How socially connected are citers to those that they cite? (2007) 0.04 
    0.03898949 = product of:
  0.07797898 = sum of:
    0.0226909 = weight(_text_:research in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0226909 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
    0.055288088 = product of:
      0.110576175 = sum of:
        0.110576175 = weight(_text_:network in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110576175 = score(doc=839,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22473325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050463587 = queryNorm
            0.492033 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the social and citation networks of three information scientists: David Nicholas, Peter Williams and Paul Huntington. Design/methodology/approach - Similarities between citation patterns and social closeness were identified and discussed. A total of 16 individuals in the citation network were identified and investigated using citation analysis, and a matrix formed of citations made between those in the network. Social connections between the 16 in the citation network were then investigated by means of a questionnaire, the results of which were merged into a separate matrix. These matrices were converted into visual social networks, using multidimensional scaling. A new deviance measure was devised for drawing comparisons between social and citation closeness in individual cases. Findings - Nicholas, Williams and Huntington were found to have cited 527 authors in the period 2000-2003, the 16 most cited becoming the subjects of further citation and social investigation. This comparison, along with the examination of visual representations indicates a positive correlation between social closeness and citation counts. Possible explanations for this correlation are discussed, and implications considered. Despite this correlation, the information scientists were found to cite widely outside their immediate social connections. Originality/value - Social network analysis has not been often used in combination with citation analysis to explore inter-relationships in research teams.
  20. Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000) 0.04 
    0.03883488 = product of:
  0.07766976 = sum of:
    0.023211608 = weight(_text_:science in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023211608 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1329271 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 4382, 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=4382)
    0.054458156 = weight(_text_:research in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054458156 = score(doc=4382,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14397179 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050463587 = queryNorm
        0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.123-138

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 201
  • d 18
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 218
  • el 6
  • m 3
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications