Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03
    0.028054593 = product of:
      0.056109186 = sum of:
        0.056109186 = product of:
          0.11221837 = sum of:
            0.11221837 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11221837 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  2. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.03
    0.028054593 = product of:
      0.056109186 = sum of:
        0.056109186 = product of:
          0.11221837 = sum of:
            0.11221837 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11221837 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = 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(1/2)
    
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  3. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02
    0.02479699 = product of:
      0.04959398 = sum of:
        0.04959398 = product of:
          0.09918796 = sum of:
            0.09918796 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09918796 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  4. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.02
    0.01753412 = product of:
      0.03506824 = sum of:
        0.03506824 = product of:
          0.07013648 = sum of:
            0.07013648 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07013648 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  5. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01
    0.014878195 = product of:
      0.02975639 = sum of:
        0.02975639 = product of:
          0.05951278 = sum of:
            0.05951278 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05951278 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  6. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.01
    0.014027297 = product of:
      0.028054593 = sum of:
        0.028054593 = product of:
          0.056109186 = sum of:
            0.056109186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056109186 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  7. Ardanuy, J.: Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951-2010) (2013) 0.01
    0.01320525 = product of:
      0.0264105 = sum of:
        0.0264105 = product of:
          0.052821 = sum of:
            0.052821 = weight(_text_:language in 1015) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052821 = score(doc=1015,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.26008 = fieldWeight in 1015, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1015)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This article provides an overview of studies that have used citation analysis in the field of humanities in the period 1951 to 2010. The work is based on an exhaustive search in databases-particularly those in library and information science-and on citation chaining from papers on citation analysis. The results confirm that use of this technique in the humanities is limited, and although there was some growth in the 1970s and 1980s, it has stagnated in the past 2 decades. Most of the work has been done by research staff, but almost one third involves library staff, and 15% has been done by students. The study also showed that less than one fourth of the works used a citation database such as the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and that 21% of the works were in publications other than library and information science journals. The United States has the greatest output, and English is by far the most frequently used language, and 13.9% of the studies are in other languages.
  8. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01
    0.012273884 = product of:
      0.024547769 = sum of:
        0.024547769 = product of:
          0.049095538 = sum of:
            0.049095538 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049095538 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  9. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01
    0.012273884 = product of:
      0.024547769 = sum of:
        0.024547769 = product of:
          0.049095538 = sum of:
            0.049095538 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049095538 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  10. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01
    0.012273884 = product of:
      0.024547769 = sum of:
        0.024547769 = product of:
          0.049095538 = sum of:
            0.049095538 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049095538 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  11. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.01
    0.011004375 = product of:
      0.02200875 = sum of:
        0.02200875 = product of:
          0.0440175 = sum of:
            0.0440175 = weight(_text_:language in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0440175 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
  12. Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis (2006) 0.01
    0.011004375 = product of:
      0.02200875 = sum of:
        0.02200875 = product of:
          0.0440175 = sum of:
            0.0440175 = weight(_text_:language in 61) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0440175 = score(doc=61,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 61, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=61)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subject-search retrieval by broadening and prioritizing the results. Subjects attached to records representing cited works are compared to subjects attached to records representing the original citing sources, and to the subjects yielded by chasing see-also references from the latter group of headings. Original citing sources were yielded via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the subject heading "Language and languages - Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked first by number of citations from original sources, then by total citation-frequency. The results were tiered into 4 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. A similar rank and division was performed on the subjects representing the original citing sources, and those yielded by chasing see-also references. Both in terms of subject frequency and topic type, positive comparisons between citation chasing and see-also references show a confirmation of different methods of yielding alternative subjects. Exclusive results suggest potential mutual complementary value among these different methods.
  13. Gabel, J.: Improving information retrieval of subjects through citation-analysis : a study (2006) 0.01
    0.011004375 = product of:
      0.02200875 = sum of:
        0.02200875 = product of:
          0.0440175 = sum of:
            0.0440175 = weight(_text_:language in 225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0440175 = score(doc=225,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2030952 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.21673335 = fieldWeight in 225, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.9232929 = idf(docFreq=2376, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=225)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subjectsearch retrieval. Subjects attached to OCLC records for cited works are compared to those attached to original citing sources. Citing sources were produced via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the LCSH "Language and languages-Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked by citation-frequency and tiered into 3 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. Highly cited subjects were produced that were not revealed through the original search. A difference in relative importance among the subjects was also revealed. Broad extra-linguistic topics like evolution are more prominent than specific linguistic topics like phonology. There are exceptions, which appear somewhat predictable by the amount of imbalance in citation-representation among the 2 sources. Citation leaders were also produced for authors and secondary-source titles.
  14. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.01
    0.010520472 = product of:
      0.021040944 = sum of:
        0.021040944 = product of:
          0.04208189 = sum of:
            0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04208189 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
  15. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.01
    0.010520472 = product of:
      0.021040944 = sum of:
        0.021040944 = product of:
          0.04208189 = sum of:
            0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04208189 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  16. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.01
    0.010520472 = product of:
      0.021040944 = sum of:
        0.021040944 = product of:
          0.04208189 = sum of:
            0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04208189 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
  17. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.01
    0.010520472 = product of:
      0.021040944 = sum of:
        0.021040944 = product of:
          0.04208189 = sum of:
            0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04208189 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  18. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01
    0.010520472 = product of:
      0.021040944 = sum of:
        0.021040944 = product of:
          0.04208189 = sum of:
            0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04208189 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  19. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01
    0.010520472 = product of:
      0.021040944 = sum of:
        0.021040944 = product of:
          0.04208189 = sum of:
            0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04208189 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  20. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.01
    0.010520472 = product of:
      0.021040944 = sum of:
        0.021040944 = product of:
          0.04208189 = sum of:
            0.04208189 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04208189 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18127751 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051766515 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05