Search (41 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.12 
    0.123571925 = product of:
  0.24714385 = sum of:
    0.19584414 = weight(_text_:reference in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19584414 = score(doc=4604,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        1.0170923 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
    0.051299702 = product of:
      0.102599405 = sum of:
        0.102599405 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102599405 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  2. Gorraiz, J.: "Web of Science" versus "Scopus" oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken (2006) 0.03 
    0.034011394 = product of:
  0.13604558 = sum of:
    0.13604558 = weight(_text_:master in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13604558 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3116585 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.4365213 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.5848994 = idf(docFreq=165, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".
  3. Wildner, B.: Web of Science - Scopus : Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen (2006) 0.03 
    0.030892981 = product of:
  0.061785962 = sum of:
    0.048961036 = weight(_text_:reference in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048961036 = score(doc=5034,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2542731 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
    0.012824926 = product of:
      0.025649851 = sum of:
        0.025649851 = weight(_text_:22 in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025649851 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Evaluation ist an der Medizinischen Universität Wien ein wichtiges Thema. So werden die Ressourcen innerhalb der Universität entsprechend der in den Leistungskriterien definierten Bewertungsmethode verteilt, deren Grundlage ein für jeden Fachbereich eigens berechneter normierter Impact Factor darstellt. Wissenschaftliche Leistung kann aber auch auf andere Art gemessen werden. Innerhalb einer Universitätsklinik oder Forschungsgruppe werden die Publikationen der wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter mittels Zitierungsanalyse bewertet. Für eine Bewerbung auf bestimmte Stellen müssen die einzelnen Wissenschaftler jeweils aktuelle Zitierungsanalysen vorlegen. Seit 2005 stellt die Universitätsbibliothek der Medizinischen Universität Wien am Campus die Datenbank Scopus zur Verfügung. Dabei handelt es sich nicht nur um eine weitere naturwissenschaftliche Literaturdatenbank, sondern um ein Konkurrenzprodukt zum Web of Science, dessen Schwerpunkt in der Suche der Referenzfelder liegt und so die Beantwortung der Fragestellung, wie oft eine wissenschaftliche Publikation zitiert wird, ermöglicht. Im seltenen Idealfall liegt eine vollständige Publikationsliste vor, von der ausgehend man eine Zitierungsanalyse starten kann. Meist aber besteht der Wunsch, nur anhand eines Autorennamens und dem Wissen, in welchem Fachgebiet jemand wissenschaftlich tätig ist, rasch die Suche nach Zitierungen zu beginnen. Im Web of Science führt der Weg über eine Cited Reference Search zu einem Cited Reference Index, aus dem man die Zitierzahlen (Times Cited) zu den einzelnen Publikationen eines Autors entnehmen kann. Als Cited Author scheinen neben dem Erstautor auch alle Mitautoren auf, vorausgesetzt die Zitierung bezieht sich auf eine Publikation, die als Source Item im Web of Science in dem Zeitraum erscheint, der für die Institution subskribiert wurde. Abschließend müssen die einzelnen Zitierzahlen eigenhändig addiert werden und ergeben so die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen für einen bestimmten Autor. In Scopus wird nach einer Autorensuche ein Document Citation Overview geboten, der die Publikationen nach Erscheinungsjahr gereiht auflistet und gleichzeitig in einer Übersichtstabelle die Zitierzahlen pro Publikation und Jahr sowie die jeweiligen Gesamtzahlen angibt.
    Date
    4. 6.2006 17:22:15
  4. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010) 0.03 
    0.030600648 = product of:
  0.12240259 = sum of:
    0.12240259 = weight(_text_:reference in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12240259 = score(doc=3998,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.6356827 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
  5. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.03 
    0.029653504 = product of:
  0.05930701 = sum of:
    0.04327585 = weight(_text_:reference in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04327585 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.22474778 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
    0.016031157 = product of:
      0.032062314 = sum of:
        0.032062314 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032062314 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  6. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.02 
    0.023722803 = product of:
  0.047445606 = sum of:
    0.03462068 = weight(_text_:reference in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03462068 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.17979822 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.012824926 = product of:
      0.025649851 = sum of:
        0.025649851 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025649851 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573904 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
  7. Boyack, K.W.; Small, H.; Klavans, R.: Improving the accuracy of co-citation clustering using full text (2013) 0.02 
    0.022486793 = product of:
  0.08994717 = sum of:
    0.08994717 = weight(_text_:reference in 1036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08994717 = score(doc=1036,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.4671295 = fieldWeight in 1036, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1036)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Historically, co-citation models have been based only on bibliographic information. Full-text analysis offers the opportunity to significantly improve the quality of the signals upon which these co-citation models are based. In this work we study the effect of reference proximity on the accuracy of co-citation clusters. Using a corpus of 270,521 full text documents from 2007, we compare the results of traditional co-citation clustering using only the bibliographic information to results from co-citation clustering where proximity between reference pairs is factored into the pairwise relationships. We find that accounting for reference proximity from full text can increase the textual coherence (a measure of accuracy) of a co-citation cluster solution by up to 30% over the traditional approach based on bibliographic information.
  8. Garfield, E.: Agony and ecstasy of the Internet : experiences of an information scientist qua publisher (1996) 0.02 
    0.021420455 = product of:
  0.08568182 = sum of:
    0.08568182 = weight(_text_:reference in 3044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08568182 = score(doc=3044,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.4449779 = fieldWeight in 3044, 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=3044)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Reports recent experiences with the publishing, via the Internet and WWW of ISI's biweekly newspaper, The Scientist; which was originally mounted on the NSFnet. Compares the use of the Internet for SDI by comparing Web searches via AltaVista with similar searches on CD-ROM. Predicts that future current awareness services and SDI services will be linked to electronic periodicals in electronic libraries. Concludes with a note on cited reference searching, a variation on the theme of hypertext searching, with particular reference to SCI and Web crawlers
  9. Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003) 0.02 
    0.018738994 = product of:
  0.07495598 = sum of:
    0.07495598 = weight(_text_:reference in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07495598 = score(doc=5156,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.3892746 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Hyland examines self referencing practices by analyzing their textual uses in 240 randomly chosen research papers and 800 abstracts across 80 expert selected journals from 1997 and 1998 in eight disciplines, as a key to their author's assumptions as to their own role in the research process and to the practices of their disciplines. Scanned texts produced a corpus of nearly 1.5 million words which was searched using WordPilot for first person pronouns and all mentions of an author's previous work. There were 6,689 instances of self reference in the papers and 459 in the abstracts; on the average 28 cases per paper, 17% of which were self citations. There was one self mention in every two abstracts. Nearly 70% of self reference and mention occurred in humanities and social science papers, but biologists employed the most self citation overall and 12% of hard science citations were found to be self citations. Interviews indicated that self citation was deemed important in establishing authority by fitting oneself into the research framework. Self mention arises in four main contexts: stating the goal or the structure of the paper, explaining a procedure, stating results or a claim, and elaborating an argument.
  10. Weinberg, B.H.: ¬The earliest Hebrew citation indexes (1997) 0.02 
    0.01836039 = product of:
  0.07344156 = sum of:
    0.07344156 = weight(_text_:reference in 86) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07344156 = score(doc=86,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.38140965 = fieldWeight in 86, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=86)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The invention of the citation index was credited to Shepard (1873) and Shapiro described a legal citation index published in 1743. A similar index was embedded in the Talmud 2 centuries earlier (1546). The 1st Hebrew citation index to a printed book is dated 1511. The earliest Hebrew manuscript citation index, ascribed to Maimonides, dates from the 12th century. Considerable knowledge was assumed for users of these tools. The substantial knowledge of their compilers contrats with the semi-automatic production of modern citation indexes. The terms citation, quotation, reference, cross-reference, locator, and concordance are employed inconsistently in publications about Hebrew indexes. There is a lack of citation links between the secondary literature on Hebrew indexes and that of citation analysis
  11. Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis : a review of literature I (1996) 0.02 
    0.01731034 = product of:
  0.06924136 = sum of:
    0.06924136 = weight(_text_:reference in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06924136 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Part 1 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Traces the history and development of bibliometrics, including its definition, scope, role in scholarly communication and applications. Treats citation analysis similarly with particular reference to bibliographic coupling and cocitation coupling
  12. Kostoff, R.N.: ¬The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation (1998) 0.02 
    0.01731034 = product of:
  0.06924136 = sum of:
    0.06924136 = weight(_text_:reference in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06924136 = score(doc=4129,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 4129, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4129)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Leydesdorff, in his 1998 paper 'Theories of citation?', addresses the history of citations and citation analysis, and the transformation of a reference mechanism into a purportedly quantitative measure of research impact/quality. Examines different facets of citations and citation analysis, and discusses the validity of citation analysis as a useful measure of research impact/quality
  13. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008) 0.02 
    0.01731034 = product of:
  0.06924136 = sum of:
    0.06924136 = weight(_text_:reference in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06924136 = score(doc=2381,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.
  14. Marshakova-Shaikevich, I.: Bibliometric maps of field of science (2005) 0.02 
    0.01593495 = product of:
  0.0637398 = sum of:
    0.0637398 = product of:
      0.1274796 = sum of:
        0.1274796 = weight(_text_:file in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1274796 = score(doc=1069,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25368783 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047329273 = queryNorm
            0.5025058 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.3600616 = idf(docFreq=564, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The present paper is devoted to two directions in algorithmic classificatory procedures: the journal co-citation analysis as an example of citation networks and lexical analysis of keywords in the titles and texts. What is common to those approaches is the general idea of normalization of deviations of the observed data from the mathematical expectation. The application of the same formula leads to discovery of statistically significant links between objects (journals in one case, keywords - in the other). The results of the journal co-citation analysis are reflected in tables and map for field "Women's Studies" and for field "Information Science and Library Science". An experimental attempt at establishing textual links between words was carried out on two samples from SSCI Data base: (1) EDUCATION and (2) ETHICS. The EDUCATION file included 2180 documents (of which 751 had abstracts); the ETHICS file included 807 documents (289 abstracts). Some examples of the results of this pilot study are given in tabular form . The binary links between words discovered in this way may form triplets or other groups with more than two member words.
  15. Garfield, E.: From citation indexes to informetrics : is the tail now wagging the dog? (1998) 0.02 
    0.015146547 = product of:
  0.060586188 = sum of:
    0.060586188 = weight(_text_:reference in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060586188 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 2809, 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=2809)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  16. Leydesdorff, L.: Theories of citation? (1999) 0.02 
    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
  17. Száva-Kováts, E.: Indirect-collective referencing (ICR) : life course, nature, and importance of a special kind of science referencing (1999) 0.01 
    0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=4298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 4298, 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=4298)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Indirect collective referencing (ICR) is a special kind of indirect referencing, in an act making reference to all references cited in a directly cited paper. In this research the literature phenomenon of ICR is defined in the narrowest sense, taking into account only its indisputable minimum. To reveal the life course of this phenomenon, a longitudinal section was taken in the representative elite general physics journal, The Physical Review, processing more than 4.200 journal papers from 1897 to 1997 and their close to 84.00 formal references. This investigation showed that the ICR phenomenon has existed in the journal for a century now; that the frequency and intensity of the phenomenon have been constantly increasing in both absolute and relative terms since the last, mature period of the Little Science age; and that this growth has accelerated in the publication explosion of the Big Science age. It was shown that the Citation Indexes show only a fraction of the really cited references in the journal
  18. Nederhof, A.J.; Visser, M.S.: Quantitative deconstruction of citation impact indicators : waxing field impact but waning journal impact (2004) 0.01 
    0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 4419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=4419,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 4419, 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=4419)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In two case studies of research units, reference values used to benchmark research performance appeared to show contradictory results: the average citation level in the subfields (FCSm) increased world-wide, while the citation level of the journals (JCSm) decreased, where concomitant changes were expected. Explanations were sought in: a shift in preference of document types; a change in publication preference for subfields; and changes in journal coverage. Publishing in newly covered journals with a low impact had a negative effect on impact ratios. However, the main factor behind the increase in FCSm was the distribution of articles across the five-year block periods that were studied. Publication in lower impact journals produced a lagging JCSm. Actual values of JCSm, FCSm, and citations per publication (CPP) values are not very informative either about research performance, or about the development of impact over time in a certain subfield with block indicators. Normalized citation impact indicators are free from such effects and should be consulted primarily in research performance assessments.
  19. He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: PubSearch : a Web citation-based retrieval system (2001) 0.01 
    0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=4806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 4806, 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=4806)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Many scientific publications are now available on the World Wide Web for researchers to share research findings. However, they tend to be poorly organised, making the search of relevant publications difficult and time-consuming. Most existing search engines are ineffective in searching these publications, as they do not index Web publications that normally appear in PDF (portable document format) or PostScript formats. Proposes a Web citation-based retrieval system, known as PubSearch, for the retrieval of Web publications. PubSearch indexes Web publications based on citation indices and stores them into a Web Citation Database. The Web Citation Database is then mined to support publication retrieval. Apart from supporting the traditional cited reference search, PubSearch also provides document clustering search and author clustering search. Document clustering groups related publications into clusters, while author clustering categorizes authors into different research areas based on author co-citation analysis.
  20. Aksnes, D.W.: Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution (2006) 0.01 
    0.012982754 = product of:
  0.051931016 = sum of:
    0.051931016 = weight(_text_:reference in 4925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051931016 = score(doc=4925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19255297 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047329273 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 4925, 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=4925)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this study scientists were asked about their own publication history and their citation counts. The study shows that the citation counts of the publications correspond reasonably well with the authors' own assessments of scientific contribution. Generally, citations proved to have the highest accuracy in identifying either major or minor contributions. Nevertheless, according to these judgments, citations are not a reliable indicator of scientific contribution at the level of the individual article. In the construction of relative citation indicators, the average citation rate of the subfield appears to be slightly more appropriate as a reference standard than the journal citation rate. The study confirms that review articles are cited more frequently than other publication types. Compared to the significance authors attach to these articles they appear to be considerably "overcited." However, there were only marginal differences in the citation rates between empirical, methods, and theoretical contributions.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 35
  • d 6

Types

  • a 41
  • el 3
  • More… Less…

Themes