Search (34 results, page 1 of 2)

0.064512394 = product of:
  0.09676859 = sum of:
    0.042676456 = weight(_text_:on in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042676456 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.3888053 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
    0.054092128 = product of:
      0.108184256 = sum of:
        0.108184256 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.108184256 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.024192145 = product of:
  0.036288217 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.0124473 = product of:
  0.0373419 = sum of:
    0.0373419 = weight(_text_:on in 3044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0373419 = score(doc=3044,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.34020463 = fieldWeight in 3044, 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=3044)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.010779679 = product of:
  0.032339036 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=761,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Attempts some new approaches to the presentation of bibliometric macro level indicators. Mathematics, engineering, physics and chemistry subfields are assigned to 13 science areas. Each science area then appears on 1 table (left page) and 2 graphs (right page). The 1st graph shows the main citation rates with respect to the world average on a relational chart. The countries are represented by letter codes that can be found in the corresponding table on the facing page. The 2nd graph visualizes the countries' relative research activity in the given science areas as compared to the world standard

0.010779679 = product of:
  0.032339036 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=4259,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 4259, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4259)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses evaluation techniques as an integral part of science with the emphasis on evalution for policy purposes. Outlines early attempts to validate the use of biliometric indicators. Concludes that: best results are obtained by applying a variety of methods simultaneously; reliable results can be obtained from citation analysis for purely scientific subfields such as physics; and citation analysis tends to give unreliable results for technological subjects. Concludes that bibliometrics as a technique for determining policy should never be used on its own. Describes an evaluation method used for selecting research projects for financial support, as applied by STW, the technology branch of the Netherlands' research council, NWO

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 20(1995) no.4, S.16-24

0.010669115 = product of:
  0.032007344 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=3376,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector

0.010058938 = product of:
  0.030176813 = sum of:
    0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 6673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030176813 = score(doc=6673,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 6673, 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=6673)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Citations are used to illustrate or elaborate on a point, or to criticize. Citation studies, based on ISI's citation indexes, can help evaluate scientific research, while impact factors aid libraries in deciding which journals to cancel or purchase. Suggests that citiation counts can replace the costly RAE in assessing the research output of university departments

0.010058938 = product of:
  0.030176813 = sum of:
    0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 5113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030176813 = score(doc=5113,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 5113, 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=5113)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A formula for the ranking of scientists based on diachronous citation counts is proposed. The paper generalises the fact that the citation generation potential (CGP) is not the same for all papers, it differs from paper to paper, and also to a certain extent depends on the subject domain of the papers. The method of ranking proposed in no way replaces peer review. It merely acts as an aid for peers to help them arrive at a better judgement.

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 4841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=4841,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 4841, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4841)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The presence of clustering structure in the CF document collection (cystic fibrosis) is evaluated as a function of the exhaustivity of 5 composite representations. The composite representations are constructed from 2 subject descriptions, based on MeSH and subheadings, and 2 citation indexes, based on the complete set of references an and a comprehensive set of citations to each document. Experiment results reveal observable evidence of clustering structure diminishes as the exhaustivity of each representation is decreased. The representation composed of references and citations shows less evidence of clustering structure at the exhaustive level but more uniform evidence of clustering structure over a wide range of exhaustivity levels than composite representations that include subject descriptions. The structures imposed on the CF document collection by all composite representations satisfy the necessary condition for a meaningful clustering outcome

0.009239726 = product of:
  0.027719175 = sum of:
    0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027719175 = score(doc=5120,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There is an ongoing discussion on the influence of international collaboration on impact as measured by citation based indicators. Collaboration generally involves more authors than 'no collaboration' work and it is obvious that the phenomenon of self citation will be stronger (there are more authors to cite themselves). Thus it can be seen as an important 'amplifier' of measured impact. Asserts, however, that this effect should not be considered as the only or even major explanation of higher impact in the comparison between 'no collaboration' and international collaboration. Using data of an extensive bibliometric study of astronomical research in the Netherlands, proves that higher rates of self citation in international collaboration do not play any significant role as 'impact amplifier'. The central point is that proper impact measurement must involve corrections for self citations

0.008890929 = product of:
  0.026672786 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Chances for information to be cited (CC) depend on disciplines and topics because of different publication and referencing practices. However, the developmental rate of knowledge strongly influences CC as well. By a simple model concludes that CC are the greater the faster the publication rate

0.008890929 = product of:
  0.026672786 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 1885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=1885,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1885, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1885)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Comments on the affinity of Web technology and citation indexes and reviews the ISI service, Web of Science. Although still requiring refinement, it multiplies the effectiveness of an already effective search tool

0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 5076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=5076,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 5076, 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=5076)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Analyses 6 indicators of the Science Citation Index Journals Citation Reports over a 19 year period: number of total citations, number of citations to the previous 2 years, number of source items, impact factor, immediacy index and cited half life. Proposes a box plot method to aggregate the values of each indicator so as to obtain at a glance portrayals of the JCR population from 1974 to 1993. This 'rereading' of the JCR, which presents the JCR product differently, makes it possible to shed new light on the large sub population of journals not at the top of the rankings

Issue

1. Description of the JCR journal population based on the number of citations received, number of source items, impact factor, immediacy index and cited half life

0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=3571,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3571, 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=3571)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses the Web of Science database recently introduced by ISI, and which is compiled from 8.000 journals covered in the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Briefly compares the database with the Citation Indexes as provided by the BIDS service at the University of Bath. Explores the characteristics and usefulness of the WoS through a search of it for articles on the topic of image retrieval by shape matching. Suggests that the selection of articles of interest is much easier and far quicker using the WoS than other methods of conducting a search using ISI's data

0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 3920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=3920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3920, 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=3920)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Science mapping is discussed in the general context of information visualization. Attempts to construct maps of science using citation data are reviewed, focusing on the use of co-citation clusters. New work is reported on a dataset of about 36.000 documents using simplified methods for ordination, and nesting maps hierarchically. an overall map of the dataset shows the multidisciplinary breadth of the document sample, and submaps allow drilling down the document level. An effort to visualize these data using advanced virtual reality software is described, and the creation of document pathways through the map is seen as a realization of Bush's associative trails

0.008801571 = product of:
  0.026404712 = sum of:
    0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026404712 = score(doc=5126,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 5126, 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=5126)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The construction of virtual science landscapes based on citation networks and the strategic use of the information therein shed new light on the issues of the evolution of the science system and possibilities for control. Leydesdorff's approach to citation theory described in his 1998 article (see this issue of LISA) takes into account the dual layered character of communication networks and the second order nature of the science system. This perspective may help to sharpen the awareness of scientists and science policy makers for possible feedback loops within actions and activities in the science system, and probably nonlinear phenomena resulting therefrom. Sketches an additional link to geometrically oriented evolutionary theories and uses a specific landscape concept as a framework for some comments

0.0076997704 = product of:
  0.02309931 = sum of:
    0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02309931 = score(doc=5644,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The act of referencing another author's work in a scholarly or research paper is usually assumed to signal a direct semantic relationship between the citing and cited work. The present article reports a study that examines this assumption directly. The purpose of the research is to investigate the semantic relationship between citing and cited documents for a sample of document pairs in three journals in library and information science: 'Library journal', 'College and research libraries' and 'Journal of the American Society for Information Science'. A macroanalysis, absed on a comparison of the Library of Congress class numbers assigned citing and cited documents, and a microanalysis, based on a comparison of descriptors assigned citing and cited documents by three indexing and abstracting journals, ERIC, LISA and LiLi, were conducted. Both analyses suggest that the subject similarity among pairs of cited and citing documents is typically very small, supporting a subjective, psychological view of relevance and a trial-and-error, heuristic understanding of the information search and research processes. The results of the study have implications for collection development, for an understanding of psychological relevance, and for the results of doing information retrieval using cited references. Several intriguing methodological questions are raised for future research, including the role of indexing depth, specifity, and quality on the measurement of document similarity

0.0075442037 = product of:
  0.02263261 = sum of:
    0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 86) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02263261 = score(doc=86,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 86, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=86)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Footnote

Contribution to part 1 of a 2 part series on the history of documentation and information science

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 8505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=8505,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 8505, 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=8505)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Focuses on a way to determine a ranking of science journals according to the number of citations-to and items-published data used by Science Citation Insitute of Citation Reports of the Institute for Science Information to determine journal ranking by impact factor. Applies latent traits theory to bibliometrics

0.007112743 = product of:
  0.021338228 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=3300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3300, 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=3300)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Seeks to describe the social networks, or invisible colleges, that make up a scientific speciality, in terms of mathematically precise sets generated by document citations and accessible through the Social Science Citation Index. The document and author sets that encompass a scientific specialty are the basis for some interdependent citation matrices. The method of construction of these sets and matrices is illustrated through an application to the literature on invisible colleges