Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

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 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)

0.010058938 = 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.

0.0062868367 = 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 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=4991,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4991, 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=4991)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

We conducted a fine-grained prosopography of six distinguished information scientists to explore commonalities and differences in their approaches to scholarly production at different stages of their careers. Specifically, we gathered data on authors' genre preferences, rates and modes of scholarly production, and coauthorship patterns. We also explored the role played by gender and place in determining mentoring and collaboration practices across time. Our biobibliometric profiles of the sextet reveal the different shapes a scholar's career can take. We consider the implications of our findings for new entrants into the academic marketplace.