-
Pichappan, P.: Levels of citation relation between papers (1996)
0.04
0.04492135 = product of:
0.15722471 = sum of:
0.042435654 = weight(_text_:subject in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042435654 = score(doc=5725,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 5725, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5725)
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=5725,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 5725, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5725)
0.0474976 = product of:
0.0949952 = sum of:
0.0949952 = weight(_text_:schemes in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0949952 = score(doc=5725,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5912352 = fieldWeight in 5725, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5725)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 5725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03364573 = score(doc=5725,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 5725, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5725)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- Abstract
- Proposes a typology for measuring the levels of citation relations netween papers. Introduces a new family of citation based classification schemes and outlines the typology that can be seen as being analogous to Ranganathan's APUPA pattern in subject mapping
-
Moed, H.F.; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Reedijk, J.: ¬A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors (1998)
0.01
0.006660128 = product of:
0.046620894 = sum of:
0.023310447 = weight(_text_:classification in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023310447 = score(doc=4719,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24377833 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
0.023310447 = weight(_text_:classification in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023310447 = score(doc=4719,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.24377833 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- During the past decades, journal impact data obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have gained relevance in library management, research management and research evaluation. Hence, both information scientists and bibliometricians share the responsibility towards the users of the JCR to analyse the reliability and validity of its measures thoroughly, to indicate pitfalls and to suggest possible improvements. In this article, ageing patterns are examined in 'formal' use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1981-1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their ageing characteristics is introduced. This system has been applied to as many as 3,098 journals covered by the Science Citation Index. Following an earlier suggestion by Glnzel and Schoepflin, a maturing and a decline phase are distinguished. From an analysis across all subfields it has been concluded that ageing characteristics are primarily specific to the individual journal rather than to the subfield, while the distribution of journals in terms of slowly or rapidly maturing or declining types is specific to the subfield. It is shown that the cited half life (CHL), printed in the JCR, is an inappropriate measure of decline of journal impact. Following earlier work by Line and others, a more adequate parameter of decline is calculated taking into account the size of annual volumes during a range of fifteen years. For 76 per cent of SCI journals the relative difference between this new parameter and the ISI CHL exceeds 5 per cent. The current JCR journal impact factor is proven to be biased towards journals revealing a rapid maturing and decline in impact. Therefore, a longer term impact factor is proposed, as well as a normalised impact statistic, taking into account citation characteristics of the research subfield covered by a journal and the type of documents published in it. When these new measures are combined with the proposed ageing classification system, they provide a significantly improved picture of a journal's impact to that obtained from the JCR.
-
Moed, H.F.; Bruin, R.E.D.; Leeuwen, T.N.V.: New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance : database description, overview of indicators and first applications (1995)
0.01
0.00576784 = product of:
0.04037488 = sum of:
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02018744 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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
-
Nazim, A.S.: Subject relationship between articles determined by co-occurrences of keywords in citing and cited titles (1993)
0.00
0.0042435653 = product of:
0.059409913 = sum of:
0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 6358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059409913 = score(doc=6358,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 6358, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6358)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
-
Shaw, W.M.: Subject and citation indexing : pt.2: the optimal, cluster-based retrieval performance of composite representations (1991)
0.00
0.0034293185 = product of:
0.048010457 = sum of:
0.048010457 = weight(_text_:subject in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048010457 = score(doc=4842,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Fortsetzung von pt.1: experimental retrieval results are presented as a function of the exhaustivity and similarity of the composite representations and reveal consistent patterns from which optimal performance levels can be identified. The optimal performance values provide an assessment of the absolute capacity of each composite representation to associate documents relevant to different queries in single-link hierarchies. The effectiveness of the exhaustive representation composed of references and citations is materially superior to the effectiveness of exhaustive composite representations that include subject descriptions
-
Shaw, W.M.: Subject and citation indexing : pt.1: the clustering structure of composite representations in the cystic fibrosis document collection (1991)
0.00
0.0031500303 = product of:
0.044100422 = sum of:
0.044100422 = weight(_text_:subject in 4841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044100422 = score(doc=4841,freq=6.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 4841, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4841)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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
-
Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis : a review of literature I (1996)
0.00
0.002872974 = product of:
0.04022163 = sum of:
0.04022163 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04022163 = score(doc=7170,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 7170, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7170)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Part 1 of a 2 part article reviewing the technique of bibliometrics and one of its most widely used methods, citation analysis. Traces the history and development of bibliometrics, including its definition, scope, role in scholarly communication and applications. Treats citation analysis similarly with particular reference to bibliographic coupling and cocitation coupling
-
Howard, D.L.: What the eye sees while predicitng a document's pertinence from its citation (1991)
0.00
0.0024248946 = product of:
0.033948522 = sum of:
0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948522 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Predicting relevance of documents from citations is a common problem for information users. The study addresses the relevance prediction process and most specifically, what is viewed by the subject while using the citations. 2 kinds of protocols were collected while 11 subjects viewed 7 citations each. Eye fixations and eye movements between parts of citations were examined. Verbal reports from subjects during this process were used to explore the process of assessment
-
Pao, M.L.: Term and citation retrieval : a field study (1993)
0.00
0.0024248946 = product of:
0.033948522 = sum of:
0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948522 = score(doc=3741,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Investigates the relative efficacy of searching by terms and by citations in searches collected in health science libraries. In pilot and field studies the odds that overlap items retrieved would be relevant or partially relevant were greatly improved. In the field setting citation searching was able to add average of 24% recall to traditional subject retrieval. Attempts to identify distinguishing characteristics in queries which might benefit most from additional citation searches proved inclusive. Online access of citation databases has been hampered by their high cost
-
So, C.Y.K.: Citation ranking versus expert judgement in evaluating communication scholars : effects of research specialty size and individual prominence (1998)
0.00
0.0024248946 = product of:
0.033948522 = sum of:
0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948522 = score(doc=327,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Numerous attempts have been made to validate the use of citations as an evaluation method by comparing it with peer review. Unlike past studies using journals, research articles or universities as the subject matter, the present study extends the comparison to the ranking of individual scholars. Results show that citation ranking and expert judgement of communication scholars are highly correlated. The citation methods and the expert judgement method are found to work better in smaller research areas and yield more valid evaluation results for more prominent scholars
-
Meng, L.: ¬The creation of [the] Chinese Science Citation Database : status quo and future development (1997)
0.00
0.0024248946 = product of:
0.033948522 = sum of:
0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948522 = score(doc=954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=954)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- The Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) is a significant document database on mainland China, which has been built up by the Documentation and Information Centre of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Briefly introduces the background to CSCD, and discusses in detail its development and application, source journals and citation data, data processing methods, subject scope, compilation regulations, stylistic rules and layout, and usage directions for both the printed and CD-ROM editions of CSCD which have been published from the data
-
Sen, B.K.; Pandalai, T.A.; Karanjai, A.: Ranking of scientists - a new approach (1998)
0.00
0.0024248946 = product of:
0.033948522 = sum of:
0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 5113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948522 = score(doc=5113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 5113, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5113)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992)
0.00
0.0023245723 = product of:
0.03254401 = sum of:
0.03254401 = product of:
0.06508802 = sum of:
0.06508802 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06508802 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 7. 2.2005 14:10:22
-
Tsay, M.-Y.: From Science Citation Index to Journal Citation Reports, amd criteria for journals evaluation (1997)
0.00
0.0021217826 = product of:
0.029704956 = sum of:
0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029704956 = score(doc=657,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Investigates the characteristics of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) through the study of the Science Citation Index (SCI). Other criteria for evaluating a journal are also discussed. The compilation process of SCI data, and the characteristics, applications and limitations of SCI are studied. A detailed description of JCR is provided including: journal ranking listing, citing journal listing, cited journal listing, subject category listing, source data, impact factor, immediacy index, cited half-life and citing half-life. The applications and limitations of JCR are also explored. In addition to the criteria listed in JCR, the size, circulation and influence of journals are also considered significant criteria fir evaluation purposes
-
Harter, S.P.; Nisonger, T.E.; Weng, A.: Semantic relationsships between cited and citing articles in library and information science journals (1993)
0.00
0.0015155592 = product of:
0.021217827 = sum of:
0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021217827 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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
-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.00
8.7171455E-4 = product of:
0.0122040035 = sum of:
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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
-
Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998)
0.00
8.7171455E-4 = product of:
0.0122040035 = sum of:
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:33:24
