Search (171 results, page 1 of 9)

0.064961776 = product of:
  0.12992355 = sum of:
    0.12992355 = product of:
      0.2598471 = sum of:
        0.2598471 = weight(_text_:maps in 4112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2598471 = score(doc=4112,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.9124516 = fieldWeight in 4112, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4112)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

VOS is a new mapping technique that can serve as an alternative to the well-known technique of multidimensional scaling (MDS). We present an extensive comparison between the use of MDS and the use of VOS for constructing bibliometric maps. In our theoretical analysis, we show the mathematical relation between the two techniques. In our empirical analysis, we use the techniques for constructing maps of authors, journals, and keywords. Two commonly used approaches to bibliometric mapping, both based on MDS, turn out to produce maps that suffer from artifacts. Maps constructed using VOS turn out not to have this problem. We conclude that in general maps constructed using VOS provide a more satisfactory representation of a dataset than maps constructed using well-known MDS approaches.

0.061366733 = product of:
  0.12273347 = sum of:
    0.12273347 = sum of:
      0.08840178 = weight(_text_:maps in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08840178 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.31042236 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.034331687 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034331687 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.061366733 = product of:
  0.12273347 = sum of:
    0.12273347 = sum of:
      0.08840178 = weight(_text_:maps in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08840178 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.31042236 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.034331687 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034331687 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.061366733 = product of:
  0.12273347 = sum of:
    0.12273347 = sum of:
      0.08840178 = weight(_text_:maps in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08840178 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.31042236 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
      0.034331687 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034331687 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17747006 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050679237 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22

0.058472283 = product of:
  0.11694457 = sum of:
    0.11694457 = product of:
      0.23388913 = sum of:
        0.23388913 = weight(_text_:maps in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23388913 = score(doc=1131,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.8213004 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using the option Analyze Results with the Web of Science, one can directly generate overlays onto global journal maps of science. The maps are based on the 10,000+ journals contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices (2011). The disciplinary diversity of the retrieval is measured in terms of Rao-Stirling's "quadratic entropy" (Izsák & Papp, 1995). Since this indicator of interdisciplinarity is normalized between 0 and 1, interdisciplinarity can be compared among document sets and across years, cited or citing. The colors used for the overlays are based on Blondel, Guillaume, Lambiotte, and Lefebvre's (2008) community-finding algorithms operating on the relations among journals included in the JCR. The results can be exported from VOSViewer with different options such as proportional labels, heat maps, or cluster density maps. The maps can also be web-started or animated (e.g., using PowerPoint). The "citing" dimension of the aggregated journal-journal citation matrix was found to provide a more comprehensive description than the matrix based on the cited archive. The relations between local and global maps and their different functions in studying the sciences in terms of journal literatures are further discussed: Local and global maps are based on different assumptions and can be expected to serve different purposes for the explanation.

0.054134816 = product of:
  0.10826963 = sum of:
    0.10826963 = product of:
      0.21653926 = sum of:
        0.21653926 = weight(_text_:maps in 4956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21653926 = score(doc=4956,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.7603764 = fieldWeight in 4956, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We describe two general approaches to creating document-level maps of science. To create a local map, one defines and directly maps a sample of data, such as all literature published in a set of information science journals. To create a global map of a research field, one maps "all of science" and then locates a literature sample within that full context. We provide a deductive argument that global mapping should create more accurate partitions of a research field than does local mapping, followed by practical reasons why this may not be so. The field of information science is then mapped at the document level using both local and global methods to provide a case illustration of the differences between the methods. Textual coherence is used to assess the accuracies of both maps. We find that document clusters in the global map have significantly higher coherence than do those in the local map, and that the global map provides unique insights into the field of information science that cannot be discerned from the local map. Specifically, we show that information science and computer science have a large interface and that computer science is the more progressive discipline at that interface. We also show that research communities in temporally linked threads have a much higher coherence than do isolated communities, and that this feature can be used to predict which threads will persist into a subsequent year. Methods that could increase the accuracy of both local and global maps in the future also are discussed.

0.049418103 = product of:
  0.098836206 = sum of:
    0.098836206 = product of:
      0.19767241 = sum of:
        0.19767241 = weight(_text_:maps in 6667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19767241 = score(doc=6667,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.69412553 = fieldWeight in 6667, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

How knowledge is organized in human memory is of interest to both information science and cognitive science. The current information retrieval (IR) systems can be improved if we understand which conceptual structures could facilitate users in information processing and seeking. This project examined twenty-two cognitive maps on ten research topics generated by ten experts and eleven non-experts. Experts were those who had completed a research project on the topic prior to participating in this study, while non-experts were from the same academic department who were familiar with the topic but had not conducted any in-depth research on it. A research topic can be represented by a vocabulary and the relationships among the terms in the vocabulary. A cognitive map visualizes the vocabulary and its configuration in a plane. We observed that experts did not generate the maps much faster than non-experts. Both experts and non-experts modified the given vocabulary by either adding or dropping terms. The dominant configuration for the maps was top-down, while five maps were orientated in left-right or radical structure (from a center). Experts tended to use problem-oriented approach to organize the vocabulary while non-experts often applied discipline-oriented hierarchical structure. Despite of many differences in vocabulary and structure by individuals, there are terms clustered in a similar ways across maps indicating an agreed-upon semantic closeness among these terms

0.045934916 = product of:
  0.09186983 = sum of:
    0.09186983 = product of:
      0.18373966 = sum of:
        0.18373966 = weight(_text_:maps in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18373966 = score(doc=1080,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.6452008 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author searching is traditionally based on the matching of name strings. Special characteristics of authors as personal names and subject indicators are not considered. This makes it difficult to identify a set of related authors or to group authors by subjects in retrieval systems. In this paper, we describe the design and implementation of a prototype visualization system to enhance author searching. The system, called AuthorLink, is based on author co-citation analysis and visualization mapping algorithms such as Kohonen's feature maps and Pathfinder networks. AuthorLink produces interactive author maps in real time from a database of 1.26 million records supplied by the Institute for Scientific Information. The maps show subject groupings and more fine-grained intellectual connections among authors. Through the interactive interface the user can take advantage of such information to refine queries and retrieve documents through point-and-click manipulation of the authors' names.

0.045934916 = product of:
  0.09186983 = sum of:
    0.09186983 = product of:
      0.18373966 = sum of:
        0.18373966 = weight(_text_:maps in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18373966 = score(doc=3436,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.6452008 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.

0.04420089 = product of:
  0.08840178 = sum of:
    0.08840178 = product of:
      0.17680356 = sum of:
        0.17680356 = weight(_text_:maps in 1814) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17680356 = score(doc=1814,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.6208447 = fieldWeight in 1814, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1814)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using Scopus data, we construct a global map of science based on aggregated journal-journal citations from 1996-2012 (N of journals?=?20,554). This base map enables users to overlay downloads from Scopus interactively. Using a single year (e.g., 2012), results can be compared with mappings based on the Journal Citation Reports at the Web of Science (N?=?10,936). The Scopus maps are more detailed at both the local and global levels because of their greater coverage, including, for example, the arts and humanities. The base maps can be interactively overlaid with journal distributions in sets downloaded from Scopus, for example, for the purpose of portfolio analysis. Rao-Stirling diversity can be used as a measure of interdisciplinarity in the sets under study. Maps at the global and the local level, however, can be very different because of the different levels of aggregation involved. Two journals, for example, can both belong to the humanities in the global map, but participate in different specialty structures locally. The base map and interactive tools are available online (with instructions) at http://www.leydesdorff.net/scopus_ovl.

0.043756653 = product of:
  0.087513305 = sum of:
    0.087513305 = product of:
      0.17502661 = sum of:
        0.17502661 = weight(_text_:maps in 8281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17502661 = score(doc=8281,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.61460495 = fieldWeight in 8281, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes a method for the generation of journal-journal citation maps on the basis of the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index. Discusses sources of potential error from this data. Offers strategies to counteract such errors. Analyzes a number of scientometric periodical mappings in relation to mappings from previous studies which have used tape data and/or data from ISI's Journal Citation Reports. Compares the quality of these mappings with the quality of those for previous years in order to demonstrate the use of such mappings as indicators for dynamic developments in the sciences

0.043756653 = product of:
  0.087513305 = sum of:
    0.087513305 = product of:
      0.17502661 = sum of:
        0.17502661 = weight(_text_:maps in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17502661 = score(doc=410,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.61460495 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Science mapping projects have been revived by the advent of virtual reality (VR) software capable of navigating large sysnthetic 3 dimensional spaces. Unlike the earlier mapping efforts aimed at creating simple maps at either a global or local level, the focus is now on creating large scale maps displaying many thousands of documents which can be input into the new VR systems. Presents a general framework for creating large scale document spaces as well as some new methods which perform some of the individual processing steps. The methods are designed primarily for citation data but could be applied to other types of data, including hypertext links

0.038279098 = product of:
  0.076558195 = sum of:
    0.076558195 = product of:
      0.15311639 = sum of:
        0.15311639 = weight(_text_:maps in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15311639 = score(doc=3335,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.53766733 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.

0.038279098 = product of:
  0.076558195 = sum of:
    0.076558195 = product of:
      0.15311639 = sum of:
        0.15311639 = weight(_text_:maps in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15311639 = score(doc=2710,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.53766733 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge organization (KO) and bibliometrics have traditionally been seen as separate subfields of library and information science, but bibliometric techniques make it possible to identify candidate terms for thesauri and to organize knowledge by relating scientific papers and authors to each other and thereby indicating kinds of relatedness and semantic distance. It is therefore important to view bibliometric techniques as a family of approaches to KO in order to illustrate their relative strengths and weaknesses. The subfield of bibliometrics concerned with citation analysis forms a distinct approach to KO which is characterized by its social, historical and dynamic nature, its close dependence on scholarly literature and its explicit kind of literary warrant. The two main methods, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling represent different things and thus neither can be considered superior for all purposes. The main difference between traditional knowledge organization systems (KOSs) and maps based on citation analysis is that the first group represents intellectual KOSs, whereas the second represents social KOSs. For this reason bibliometric maps cannot be expected ever to be fully equivalent to scholarly taxonomies, but they are - along with other forms of KOSs - valuable tools for assisting users' to orient themselves to the information ecology. Like other KOSs, citation-based maps cannot be neutral but will always be based on researchers' decisions, which tend to favor certain interests and views at the expense of others.

0.038279098 = product of:
  0.076558195 = sum of:
    0.076558195 = product of:
      0.15311639 = sum of:
        0.15311639 = weight(_text_:maps in 3538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15311639 = score(doc=3538,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.53766733 = fieldWeight in 3538, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Induced by "big data," "topic modeling" has become an attractive alternative to mapping co-words in terms of co-occurrences and co-absences using network techniques. Does topic modeling provide an alternative for co-word mapping in research practices using moderately sized document collections? We return to the word/document matrix using first a single text with a strong argument ("The Leiden Manifesto") and then upscale to a sample of moderate size (n?=?687) to study the pros and cons of the two approaches in terms of the resulting possibilities for making semantic maps that can serve an argument. The results from co-word mapping (using two different routines) versus topic modeling are significantly uncorrelated. Whereas components in the co-word maps can easily be designated, the topic models provide sets of words that are very differently organized. In these samples, the topic models seem to reveal similarities other than semantic ones (e.g., linguistic ones). In other words, topic modeling does not replace co-word mapping in small and medium-sized sets; but the paper leaves open the possibility that topic modeling would work well for the semantic mapping of large sets.

0.0375057 = product of:
  0.0750114 = sum of:
    0.0750114 = product of:
      0.1500228 = sum of:
        0.1500228 = weight(_text_:maps in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1500228 = score(doc=326,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.5268042 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Much effort has been done to develop more objective quantitative methods to analyze and integrate survey information for understanding research trends and research structures. Co-word analysis is one class of techniques that exploits the use of co-occurences of items in written information. However, there are some bottlenecks in using statistical methods to produce mappings of reduced information in a comfortable manner. On one hand, often used statistical software for PCs has restrictions for the amount for calculable data; on the other hand, the results of the mufltidimensional scaling routines are not quite satisfying. Therefore, this article introduces a new iteration model for the calculation of co-word maps that eases the problem. The iteration model is for positioning the words in the two-dimensional plane due to their connections to each other, and its consists of a quick and stabile algorithm that has been implemented with software for personal computers. A graphic module represents the data in well-known 'technology maps'

0.0375057 = product of:
  0.0750114 = sum of:
    0.0750114 = product of:
      0.1500228 = sum of:
        0.1500228 = weight(_text_:maps in 1456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1500228 = score(doc=1456,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.5268042 = fieldWeight in 1456, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1456)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Can maps of science tell us anything about paradigms? The author reviews his earlier work an this question, including Kuhn's reaction to it. Kuhn's view of the role of bibliometrics differs substantially from the kinds of reinterpretations of paradigms that information scientists are currently advocating. But these reinterpretations are necessary if his theory will ever be empirically tested, and further progress is to be made in understanding the growth of scientific knowledge. A new Web tool is discussed that highlights rapidly changing specialties that may lead to new ways of monitoring revolutionary change in real time. It is suggested that revolutionary and normal science be seen as extremes an a continuum of rates of change rather than, as Kuhn originally asserted, as an all or none proposition.

0.0375057 = product of:
  0.0750114 = sum of:
    0.0750114 = product of:
      0.1500228 = sum of:
        0.1500228 = weight(_text_:maps in 3242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1500228 = score(doc=3242,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.5268042 = fieldWeight in 3242, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Vom 14. bis 17. Juli fand in Rio de Janeiro die 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics statt. Das von den Organisatoren formulierte Ziel der Tagung war es, ein internationals Forum für Wissenschaftler, Wissenschaftsmanager und im Informationsbereich Tätige zu bieten, um den gegenwärtigen Stand und die Fortschritte im Feld szientometrischer Theorien und Anwendungen zu diskutieren. Nachdem die letzten beiden Konferenzen in Europa stattgefunden hatten (Stockholm und Madrid), war mit der Wahl des Tagungsortes zudem der Anspruch verknüpft, einen Beitrag zur weiteren Verbreitung der Szientometrie in lateinamerikanischen Ländern zu leisten. Die Konferenz verzeichnete die in ihrer bisherigen Geschichte höchste Zahl von eingereichten Beiträgen (254), von denen 66 Prozent angenommen wurden. Das endgültige Programm umfasste damit zwei Keynotes, über 90 Vorträge in 21 Sessions sowie 64 Poster. Vor dem Beginn dieses Hauptprogramms der Konferenz fanden darüber hinaus ein Doctoral Forum und drei Workshops zu den Themen "Tracking and evaluating interdisciplinary research: metric and maps", "Visualizing and Analyzing Scientific Literature with CiteSpace" und "Using Maps of Science to Teach Science" statt.

0.0375057 = product of:
  0.0750114 = sum of:
    0.0750114 = product of:
      0.1500228 = sum of:
        0.1500228 = weight(_text_:maps in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1500228 = score(doc=1230,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.5268042 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The majority of the effort in metrics research has addressed research evaluation. Far less research has addressed the unique problems of research planning. Models and maps of science that can address the detailed problems associated with research planning are needed. This article reports on the creation of an article-level model and map of science covering 16 years and nearly 20 million articles using cocitation-based techniques. The map is then used to define discipline-like structures consisting of natural groupings of articles and clusters of articles. This combination of detail and high-level structure can be used to address planning-related problems such as identification of emerging topics and the identification of which areas of science and technology are innovative and which are simply persisting. In addition to presenting the model and map, several process improvements that result in greater accuracy structures are detailed, including a bibliographic coupling approach for assigning current papers to cocitation clusters and a sequential hybrid approach to producing visual maps from models.

0.035360713 = product of:
  0.070721425 = sum of:
    0.070721425 = product of:
      0.14144285 = sum of:
        0.14144285 = weight(_text_:maps in 1039) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14144285 = score(doc=1039,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28477904 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050679237 = queryNorm
            0.4966758 = fieldWeight in 1039, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.619245 = idf(docFreq=435, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1039)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)