-
Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012)
0.08
0.08321081 = product of:
0.12481621 = sum of:
0.014099943 = weight(_text_:of in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014099943 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
0.11071627 = sum of:
0.040008247 = weight(_text_:science in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040008247 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
0.07070802 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07070802 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 14. 2.2012 12:53:22
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996)
0.07
0.06613006 = product of:
0.09919508 = sum of:
0.03276531 = weight(_text_:of in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03276531 = score(doc=7659,freq=30.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
30.0 = termFreq=30.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
0.066429764 = sum of:
0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02400495 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042424813 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
-
Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006)
0.06
0.06120644 = product of:
0.09180966 = sum of:
0.025379896 = weight(_text_:of in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025379896 = score(doc=5270,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
0.066429764 = sum of:
0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02400495 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042424813 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:26:24
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.342-346
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.05
0.04750035 = product of:
0.07125052 = sum of:
0.020335227 = weight(_text_:of in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020335227 = score(doc=5171,freq=26.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.050915293 = sum of:
0.022632083 = weight(_text_:science in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022632083 = score(doc=5171,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.028283209 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028283209 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
-
Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Citation analysis and the development of science : a case study using articles by some Nobel prize winners (2014)
0.04
0.03974871 = product of:
0.059623063 = sum of:
0.03190453 = weight(_text_:of in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03190453 = score(doc=1197,freq=16.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
0.027718531 = product of:
0.055437062 = sum of:
0.055437062 = weight(_text_:science in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055437062 = score(doc=1197,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Using citation data of articles written by some Nobel Prize winners in physics, we show that concave, convex, and straight curves represent different types of interactions between old ideas and new insights. These cases illustrate different diffusion characteristics of academic knowledge, depending on the nature of the knowledge in the new publications. This work adds to the study of the development of science and links this development to citation analysis.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.281-289
-
Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: Yield sequences as journal attractivity indicators : "payback times" for Science and Nature (2008)
0.03
0.03339672 = product of:
0.05009508 = sum of:
0.029306183 = weight(_text_:of in 1737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029306183 = score(doc=1737,freq=24.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1737, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1737)
0.020788899 = product of:
0.041577797 = sum of:
0.041577797 = weight(_text_:science in 1737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041577797 = score(doc=1737,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 1737, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1737)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The yield period of a journal is defined as the time needed to accumulate the same number of citations as the number of references included during the period of study. Yield sequences are proposed as journal attractivity indicators describing dynamic characteristics of a journal. This paper aims to investigate their use. Design/methodology/approach - As a case study the yield sequences of the journals Nature and Science from 1955 onward are determined. Similarities and dissimilarities between these sequences are discussed and factors affecting yield periods are determined. Findings - The study finds that yield sequences make dynamic aspects of a journal visible, as reflected through citations. Exceptional circumstances (here the publication of Laemmli's paper in 1970 in the journal Nature) become clearly visible. The average number of references per article, the citation distribution and the size of the database used to collect citations are factors influencing yield sequences. Originality/value - A new dynamic indicator for the study of journals is introduced.
- Object
- Science
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.2, S.229-245
-
Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Interestingness and the essence of citation : Thomas Reid and bibliographic description (2013)
0.03
0.032564957 = product of:
0.048847433 = sum of:
0.028058534 = weight(_text_:of in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028058534 = score(doc=1764,freq=22.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
0.020788899 = product of:
0.041577797 = sum of:
0.041577797 = weight(_text_:science in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041577797 = score(doc=1764,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This paper aims to provide a new insight into the reasons why authors cite. Design/methodology/approach The authors argue that, based on philosophical ideas about the essence of things, pure rational thinking about the role of citations leads to the answer. Findings - Citations originate from the interestingness of the investigated phenomenon. The essence of citation lies in the interaction between different ideas or perspectives on a phenomenon addressed in the citing as well as in the cited articles. Research limitations/implications - The findings only apply to ethical (not whimsical or self-serving) citations. As such citations reflect interactions of scientific ideas, they can reveal the evolution of science, revive the cognitive process of an investigated scientific phenomenon and reveal political and economic factors influencing the development of science. Originality/value - This article is the first to propose interestingness and the interaction of ideas as the basic reason for citing. This view on citations allows reverse engineering from citations to ideas and hence becomes useful for science policy.
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.4, S.580-589
-
Rousseau, R.: On Egghe's construction of Lorenz curves (2007)
0.03
0.03213601 = product of:
0.048204012 = sum of:
0.028199887 = weight(_text_:of in 521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028199887 = score(doc=521,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 521, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=521)
0.020004123 = product of:
0.040008247 = sum of:
0.040008247 = weight(_text_:science in 521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040008247 = score(doc=521,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 521, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=521)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Contrary to Burrell's statements, Egghe's theory of continuous concentration does include the construction of a standard Lorenz curve.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1551-1552
-
Rousseau, R.: Use of an existing thesaurus in a knowledge based indexing and retrieval system (1991)
0.03
0.031955566 = product of:
0.047933348 = sum of:
0.023928396 = weight(_text_:of in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023928396 = score(doc=3007,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
0.02400495 = product of:
0.0480099 = sum of:
0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0480099 = score(doc=3007,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Annals of library science and documentation. 38(1991) no.4, S.127-130
-
Rousseau, S.; Rousseau, R.: Metric-wiseness (2015)
0.03
0.031830467 = product of:
0.047745697 = sum of:
0.01973992 = weight(_text_:of in 6069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01973992 = score(doc=6069,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 6069, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6069)
0.028005775 = product of:
0.05601155 = sum of:
0.05601155 = weight(_text_:science in 6069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05601155 = score(doc=6069,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 6069, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6069)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2389
-
Rousseau, R.; Ding, J.: Does international collaboration yield a higher citation potential for US scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary Journals? (2016)
0.03
0.030882414 = product of:
0.04632362 = sum of:
0.022069903 = weight(_text_:of in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022069903 = score(doc=2860,freq=10.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
0.024253715 = product of:
0.04850743 = sum of:
0.04850743 = weight(_text_:science in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04850743 = score(doc=2860,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Generally, multicountry papers receive more citations than single-country ones. In this contribution, we examine if this rule also applies to American scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals. Concretely, we compare the citations received by American scientists in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It is shown that, statistically, American scientists publishing in Nature and Science do not benefit from international collaboration. This statement also holds for communicated submissions, but not for direct and for contributed submissions, to PNAS.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.1009-1013
-
Jin, B.; Li, L.; Rousseau, R.: Long-term influences of interventions in the normal development of science : China and the cultural revolution (2004)
0.03
0.030779198 = product of:
0.046168797 = sum of:
0.025379896 = weight(_text_:of in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025379896 = score(doc=2232,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2232, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2232)
0.020788899 = product of:
0.041577797 = sum of:
0.041577797 = weight(_text_:science in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041577797 = score(doc=2232,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 2232, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2232)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Intellectual and technological talents and skills are the driving force for scientific and industrial development, especially in our times characterized by a knowledgebased economy. Major events in society and related political decisions, however, can have a long-term effect an a country's scientific weIl-being. Although the Cultural Revolution took place from 1966 to 1976, its aftermath can still be felt. This is shown by this study of the production and productivity of Chinese scientists as a function of their age. Based an the 1995-2000 data from the Chinese Science Citation database (CSCD), this article investigates the year-by-year age distribution of scientific and technological personnel publishing in China. It is shown that the "Talent Fault" originating during the Cultural Revolution still exists, and that a new gap resulting from recent brain drain might be developing. The purpose of this work is to provide necessary information about the current situation and especially the existing problems of the S&T workforce in China.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.544-550
-
Yan, S.; Rousseau, R.; Huang, S.: Contributions of chinese authors in PLOS ONE (2016)
0.03
0.030611023 = product of:
0.045916535 = sum of:
0.026113462 = weight(_text_:of in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026113462 = score(doc=2765,freq=14.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
0.019803073 = product of:
0.039606147 = sum of:
0.039606147 = weight(_text_:science in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039606147 = score(doc=2765,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Beginning with a short review of Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals, we focus on PLOS ONE and more specifically the contributions of Chinese authors to this journal. It is shown that their contribution is growing exponentially. In 2013 almost one fifth of all publications in this journal had at least one Chinese author. The average number of citations per publication is approximately the same for articles with a Chinese author and for articles without any Chinese coauthor. Using the odds-ratio, we could not find arguments that Chinese authors in PLOS ONE excessively cite other Chinese contributions.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.543-549
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Rousseau, S.: TOP-curves (2007)
0.03
0.02907518 = product of:
0.043612767 = sum of:
0.02960988 = weight(_text_:of in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02960988 = score(doc=50,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
0.0140028875 = product of:
0.028005775 = sum of:
0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028005775 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Several characteristics of classical Lorenz curves make them unsuitable for the study of a group of topperformers. TOP-curves, defined as a kind of mirror image of TIP-curves used in poverty studies, are shown to possess the properties necessary for adequate empirical ranking of various data arrays, based on the properties of the highest performers (i.e., the core). TOP-curves and essential TOP-curves, also introduced in this article, simultaneously represent the incidence, intensity, and inequality among the top. It is shown that TOPdominance partial order, introduced in this article, is stronger than Lorenz dominance order. In this way, this article contributes to the study of cores, a central issue in applied informetrics.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.777-785
-
Rousseau, R.: Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator (2012)
0.03
0.02907518 = product of:
0.043612767 = sum of:
0.02960988 = weight(_text_:of in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02960988 = score(doc=4993,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
0.0140028875 = product of:
0.028005775 = sum of:
0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028005775 = score(doc=4993,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- We introduce the notions of congruous indicator of relative performance and congruous indicator of absolute performance. These notions are very similar to the notions of independence and consistency, yet slightly different. It is shown that percentile rank scores, as recently introduced by Leydesdorff, Bornmann, Mutz, and Opthof (2011), are strictly congruous indicators of relative performance, and similarly, that the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3), introduced by Leydesdorff and Bornmann (2011), is a strictly congruous indicator of absolute performance. Our analysis highlights the challenge of finding adequate axioms for ranking and for research evaluation.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.416-420
-
Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Towards a representation of diffusion and interaction of scientific ideas : the case of fiber optics communication (2012)
0.03
0.02907518 = product of:
0.043612767 = sum of:
0.02960988 = weight(_text_:of in 2723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02960988 = score(doc=2723,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 2723, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2723)
0.0140028875 = product of:
0.028005775 = sum of:
0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 2723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028005775 = score(doc=2723,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 2723, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2723)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The research question studied in this contribution is how to find an adequate representation to describe the diffusion of scientific ideas over time. We claim that citation data, at least of articles that act as concept symbols, can be considered to contain this information. As a case study we show how the founding article by Nobel Prize winner Kao illustrates the evolution of the field of fiber optics communication. We use a continuous description of discrete citation data in order to accentuate turning points and breakthroughs in the history of this field. Applying the principles explained in this contribution informetrics may reveal the trajectories along which science is developing.
-
Zhang, L.; Rousseau, R.; Glänzel, W.: Document-type country profiles (2011)
0.03
0.028113028 = product of:
0.04216954 = sum of:
0.019537456 = weight(_text_:of in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019537456 = score(doc=4487,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
0.022632083 = product of:
0.045264166 = sum of:
0.045264166 = weight(_text_:science in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045264166 = score(doc=4487,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3292649 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- A bibliometric method for analyzing and visualizing national research profiles is adapted to describe national preferences for publishing particular document types. Similarities in national profiles and national peculiarities are discussed based on the publication output of the 26 most active countries indexed in the Web of Science annual volume 2007.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1403-1411
-
Hu, X.; Rousseau, R.; Chen, J.: ¬A new approach for measuring the value of patents based on structural indicators for ego patent citation networks (2012)
0.03
0.027946234 = product of:
0.04191935 = sum of:
0.027916465 = weight(_text_:of in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027916465 = score(doc=445,freq=16.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
0.0140028875 = product of:
0.028005775 = sum of:
0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028005775 = score(doc=445,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Technology sectors differ in terms of technological complexity. When studying technology and innovation through patent analysis it is well known that similar amounts of technological knowledge can produce different numbers of patented innovation as output. A new multilayered approach to measure the technological value of patents based on ego patent citation networks (PCNs) is developed in this study. The results show that the structural indicators for the ego PCN developed in this contribution can characterize groups of patents and, hence, in an indirect way, the health of companies.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1834-1842
-
Frandsen, T.F.; Rousseau, R.: Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods (2005)
0.03
0.027539104 = product of:
0.041308656 = sum of:
0.029306183 = weight(_text_:of in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029306183 = score(doc=3264,freq=24.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
0.012002475 = product of:
0.02400495 = sum of:
0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02400495 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In this paper we address the various formulations of impact of articles, usually groups of articles as gauged by citations that these articles receive over a certain period of time. The journal impact factor, as published by ISI (Philadelphia, PA), is the best-known example of a formulation of impact of journals (considered as a set of articles) but many others have been defined in the literature. Impact factors have varying publication and citation periods and the chosen length of these periods enables, e.g., a distinction between synchronous and diachronous impact factors. It is shown how an impact factor for the general case can be defined. Two alternatives for a general impact factor are proposed, depending an whether different publication years are seen as a whole, and hence treating each one of them differently, or by operating with citation periods of identical length but allowing each publication period different starting points.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.1, S.58-62
-
Rousseau, R.: Egghe's g-index is not a proper concentration measure (2015)
0.03
0.027283255 = product of:
0.04092488 = sum of:
0.016919931 = weight(_text_:of in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016919931 = score(doc=1864,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
0.02400495 = product of:
0.0480099 = sum of:
0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0480099 = score(doc=1864,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1518-1519
