Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.032154113 = product of:
  0.12861645 = sum of:
    0.12861645 = sum of:
      0.090141684 = weight(_text_:file in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.090141684 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25368783 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047329273 = queryNorm
          0.35532522 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
      0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038474776 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047329273 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:07:20

0.029653504 = product of:
  0.05930701 = sum of:
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Climate change as a complex physical and social issue has gained increasing attention in the natural as well as the social sciences. Climate change research has become more interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary as a typical Mode-2 science that is also dependent on an application context for its further development. We propose to approach interdisciplinarity as a co-construction of the knowledge base in the reference patterns and the programmatic focus in the editorials in the core journal of the climate-change sciences-Climatic Change-during the period 1977-2013. First, we analyze the knowledge base of the journal and map journal-journal relations on the basis of the references in the articles. Second, we follow the development of the programmatic focus by analyzing the semantics in the editorials. We argue that interdisciplinarity is a result of the co-construction between different agendas: The selection of publications into the knowledge base of the journal, and the adjustment of the programmatic focus to the political context in the editorials. Our results show a widening of the knowledge base from referencing the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science to citing journals from specialist fields. The programmatic focus follows policy-oriented issues and incorporates public metaphors.

Date

24. 8.2016 17:53:22

0.021420455 = product of:
  0.08568182 = sum of:
    0.08568182 = weight(_text_:reference in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08568182 = score(doc=1238,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.4449779 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We introduce the quantitative method named "Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy" (RPYS). With this method one can determine the historical roots of research fields and quantify their impact on current research. RPYS is based on the analysis of the frequency with which references are cited in the publications of a specific research field in terms of the publication years of these cited references. The origins show up in the form of more or less pronounced peaks mostly caused by individual publications that are cited particularly frequently. In this study, we use research on graphene and on solar cells to illustrate how RPYS functions, and what results it can deliver.

0.015146547 = product of:
  0.060586188 = sum of:
    0.060586188 = weight(_text_:reference in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060586188 = score(doc=5130,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication

0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 2887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=2887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 2887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2887)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Via the Internet, information scientists can obtain costfree access to large databases in the "hidden" or "deep Web." These databases are often structured far more than the Internet domains themselves. The patent database of the U.S. Patent and Trade Office is used in this study to examine the science base of patents in terms of the literature references in these patents. Universitybased patents at the global level are compared with results when using the national economy of the Netherlands as a system of reference. Methods for accessing the online databases and for the visualization of the results are specified. The conclusion is that "biotechnology" has historically generated a model for theorizing about university-industry relations that cannot easily be generalized to other sectors and disciplines.

0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 4004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=4004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 4004, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4004)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The communication of meaning as distinct from (Shannon-type) information is central to Luhmann's social systems theory and Giddens' structuration theory of action. These theories share an emphasis on reflexivity, but focus on meaning along a divide between interhuman communication and intentful action as two different systems of reference. Recombining these two theories into a theory about the structuration of expectations, interactions, organization, and self-organization of intentional communications can be simulated based on algorithms from the computation of anticipatory systems. The self-organizing and organizing layers remain rooted in the double contingency of the human encounter, which provides the variation. Organization and self-organization of communication are reflexive upon and therefore reconstructive of each other. Using mutual information in three dimensions, the imprint of meaning processing in the modeling system on the historical organization of uncertainty in the modeled system can be measured. This is shown empirically in the case of intellectual organization as "structurating" structure in the textual domain of scientific articles.

0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=4485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We submit newly developed citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks. Citation distributions are-as a rule-highly skewed and should not be arithmetically averaged. With percentile ranks, the citation score of each paper is rated in terms of its percentile in the citation distribution. The percentile ranks approach allows for the formulation of a more abstract indicator scheme that can be used to organize and/or schematize different impact indicators according to three degrees of freedom: the selection of the reference sets, the evaluation criteria, and the choice of whether or not to define the publication sets as independent. Bibliometric data of seven principal investigators (PIs) of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam are used as an exemplary dataset. We demonstrate that the proposed family indicators [R(6), R(100), R(6, k), R(100, k)] are an improvement on averages-based indicators because one can account for the shape of the distributions of citations over papers.

0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 2224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=2224,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 2224, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2224)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."

0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.

0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 3599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=3599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 3599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3599)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

"Citation classics" are not only highly cited, but also cited during several decades. We explore whether the peaks in the spectrograms generated by Reference Publication Years Spectroscopy (RPYS) indicate such long-term impact by comparing across RPYS for subsequent time intervals. Multi-RPYS enables us to distinguish between short-term citation peaks at the research front that decay within 10 years versus historically constitutive (long-term) citations that function as concept symbols. Using these constitutive citations, one is able to cluster document sets (e.g., journals) in terms of intellectually shared histories. We test this premise by clustering 40 journals in the Web of Science Category of Information and Library Science using multi-RPYS. It follows that RPYS can not only be used for retrieving roots of sets under study (cited), but also for algorithmic historiography of the citing sets. Significant references are historically rooted symbols among other citations that function as currency.

0.010818963 = product of:
  0.04327585 = sum of:
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=4919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.

0.010818963 = product of:
  0.04327585 = sum of:
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 4941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=4941,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 4941, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4941)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) 2008, we apply mapping techniques previously developed for mapping journal structures in the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices. Citation relations among the 110,718 records were aggregated at the level of 1,157 journals specific to the A&HCI, and the journal structures are questioned on whether a cognitive structure can be reconstructed and visualized. Both cosine-normalization (bottom up) and factor analysis (top down) suggest a division into approximately 12 subsets. The relations among these subsets are explored using various visualization techniques. However, we were not able to retrieve this structure using the Institute for Scientific Information Subject Categories, including the 25 categories that are specific to the A&HCI. We discuss options for validation such as against the categories of the Humanities Indicators of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the panel structure of the European Reference Index for the Humanities, and compare our results with the curriculum organization of the Humanities Section of the College of Letters and Sciences of the University of California at Los Angeles as an example of institutional organization.

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1621, 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=1621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 5.2003 19:48:04

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.004809347 = product of:
  0.019237388 = sum of:
    0.019237388 = product of:
      0.038474776 = sum of:
        0.038474776 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038474776 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

0.0040077893 = product of:
  0.016031157 = sum of:
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

0.0040077893 = product of:
  0.016031157 = sum of:
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

29. 9.2018 11:22:09