Search (22 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04838429 = product of:
  0.07257643 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 7297, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7297)
    0.040569093 = product of:
      0.081138186 = sum of:
        0.081138186 = weight(_text_:22 in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081138186 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 7297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

26. 4.2015 19:27:22

0.01577687 = product of:
  0.04733061 = sum of:
    0.04733061 = product of:
      0.09466122 = sum of:
        0.09466122 = weight(_text_:22 in 7192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09466122 = score(doc=7192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7192, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2009 11:44:11

0.01577687 = product of:
  0.04733061 = sum of:
    0.04733061 = product of:
      0.09466122 = sum of:
        0.09466122 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09466122 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2013 16:18:36

0.012573673 = product of:
  0.03772102 = sum of:
    0.03772102 = weight(_text_:on in 4853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03772102 = score(doc=4853,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.3436586 = fieldWeight in 4853, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4853)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The author describes an exploratory analysis of the influence of place and proximity on collaboration. Bibliometric data and biographical information are combined to reveal the extent to which co-authorship relationships are a function of physical collocation.

0.0124473 = product of:
  0.0373419 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 1106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=1106,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 1106, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1106)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0124473 = product of:
  0.0373419 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0124473 = product of:
  0.0373419 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=1377,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors describe a large-scale, longitudinal citation analysis of intellectual trading between information studies and cognate disciplines. The results of their investigation reveal the extent to which information studies draws on and, in turn, contributes to the ideational substrates of other academic domains. Their data show that the field has become a more successful exporter of ideas as well as less introverted than was previously the case. In the last decade, information studies has begun to contribute significantly to the literatures of such disciplines as computer science and engineering on the one hand and business and management on the other, while also drawing more heavily on those same literatures.

0.011928434 = product of:
  0.0357853 = sum of:
    0.0357853 = weight(_text_:on in 525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0357853 = score(doc=525,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.32602316 = fieldWeight in 525, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=525)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications of research on bias in peer review. This review provides a brief description of the function, history, and scope of peer review; articulates and critiques the conception of bias unifying research on bias in peer review; characterizes and examines the empirical, methodological, and normative claims of bias in peer review research; and assesses possible alternatives to the status quo. We close by identifying ways to expand conceptions and studies of bias to contend with the complexity of social interactions among actors involved directly and indirectly in peer review.

0.011269193 = product of:
  0.03380758 = sum of:
    0.03380758 = product of:
      0.06761516 = sum of:
        0.06761516 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06761516 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, 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=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

0.010058938 = product of:
  0.030176813 = sum of:
    0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 2327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030176813 = score(doc=2327,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 2327, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2327)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Where, how, and why are scholars invoked on the WWW? An inductively derived typology was used to captue genres of invocation. Comparative data were gathered using five commercial search engines. It is argued that the Web fosters mow modalities of scholarly communication. Different categories of invocation are identified and analyzed in terms of their potential to inform sociometric and bibliometric analyses of academic interaction

0.010058938 = product of:
  0.030176813 = sum of:
    0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030176813 = score(doc=196,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 4709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=4709,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 4709, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4709)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes a study which examined the scholarly literature of sociology. Tens of thousands of references from monographs and leading academic journals were analyzed. The relative rankings of authors who were highly cited in the monographic literature did not change in the journal literature of the same period. However, there was only a small overlap between the most highly cited authors based on the journal sample and those based on the monograph sample. The lack of correlation suggests that there may be 2 distinct populations of highly cited authors

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 5127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=5127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 5127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5127)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reviews a variety of perspectives on citation. Argues that citations have multiple articulations in that they inform our understanding of the sociocultural, cognitive, and textual aspects of scientific communication. Proposes 2 metatheoretical frameworks as a means of negotiating the interpretative differences which characterize the various discourse communities concerned with citation theory and practice

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 1263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=1263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 1263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1263)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=4488,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Data were gathered on acknowledgements in five leading information science journals for the years 1991-1999. The results were compared with data from two earlier studies of the same journals. Analysis of the aggregate data (1971-1999) confirms the general impression that acknowledgement has become an institutionalised element of the scholarly communication process, reflecting the growing cognitive and structural complexity of contemporary research.

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 3655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=3655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3655)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper explores the history of 'the social' in information science. It traces the influence of social scientific thinking on the development of the field's intellectual base. The continuing appropriation of both theoretical and methodological insights from domains such as social studies of science, science and technology studies, and socio-technical systems is discussed.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=244,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.0062868367 = product of:
  0.01886051 = sum of:
    0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01886051 = score(doc=1285,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers-both published and unpublished-have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.

0.00622365 = product of:
  0.01867095 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Multiple authorship is a topic of growing concern in a number of scientific domains. When, as is increasingly common, scholarly articles and clinical reports have scores or even hundreds of authors-what Cronin (in press) has termed "hyperauthorship" -the precise nature of each individual's contribution is often masked. A notation that describes collaborators' contributions and allows those contributions to be tracked in, and across, texts (and over time) offers a solution. Such a notation should be useful, easy to use, and acceptable to communities of scientists. Drawing on earlier work, we present a proposal for an XML-like "contribution" mark-up, and discuss the potential benefits and possible drawbacks

0.00622365 = product of:
  0.01867095 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 480, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=480)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We explore the relationship between creativity and both chronological and professional age in information science using a novel bibliometric approach that allows us to capture the shape of a scholar's career. Our approach draws on D.W. Galenson's (2006) analyses of artistic creativity, notably his distinction between conceptual and experimental innovation, and also H.C. Lehman's (1953) seminal study of the relationship between stage of career and outstanding performance. The data presented here suggest that creativity is expressed in different ways, at different times, and with different intensities in academic information science.