Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 6697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=6697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 6697, 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=6697)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Lists the traditionally recognized problems of citation analysis and briefly summarizes empirical research on each before contrasting 2 views of science. One is the traditional view which explains why it was originally believed possible to use citation counts as evaluative data. In contrast, the constructivist view of science explains paper writing and citing behaviour quite differently from the traditional view and makes it highly unlikely that citations can be used as quality indicators

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=3308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3308, 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=3308)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

To determine influences on the production of a scientific article, the content of the article must be studied. We examined articles in biogeography and found that most of the influence is not cited, specific types of articles that are influential are cited while other types of that also are influential are not cited, and work that is uncited and seldom cited is used extensively. As a result, evaluative citation analysis should take uncited work into account.

0.00622365 = product of:
  0.01867095 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 4058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=4058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4058, 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=4058)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

For several decades we, among others, have criticized the use of citations for evaluative purposes. Although these criticisms have been noted, they have been largely brushed aside or ignored, not addressed head on. This may be for a number of reasons, but we believe the main one is that these criticisms undermine the desire to have an easy "scientific"-that is, quantitative-method of evaluation. Consequently, we continue and update our criticism of the use of citations for evaluation.