-
Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013)
0.11
0.11061867 = product of:
0.49778402 = sum of:
0.24889201 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.24889201 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3321406 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.24889201 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.24889201 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3321406 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Content
- Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
-
Mayernik, M.S.; Hart, D.L.; Maull, K.E.; Weber, N.M.: Assessing and tracing the outcomes and impact of research infrastructures (2017)
0.06
0.06488947 = product of:
0.14600131 = sum of:
0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041947264 = score(doc=3635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018332949 = score(doc=3635,freq=24.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
0.034061253 = weight(_text_:software in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034061253 = score(doc=3635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
0.051659852 = product of:
0.103319705 = sum of:
0.103319705 = weight(_text_:packages in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.103319705 = score(doc=3635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2706874 = queryWeight, product of:
6.9093957 = idf(docFreq=119, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.3816938 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.9093957 = idf(docFreq=119, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
- Abstract
- Recent policy shifts on the part of funding agencies and journal publishers are causing changes in the acknowledgment and citation behaviors of scholars. A growing emphasis on open science and reproducibility is changing how authors cite and acknowledge "research infrastructures"-entities that are used as inputs to or as underlying foundations for scholarly research, including data sets, software packages, computational models, observational platforms, and computing facilities. At the same time, stakeholder interest in quantitative understanding of impact is spurring increased collection and analysis of metrics related to use of research infrastructures. This article reviews work spanning several decades on tracing and assessing the outcomes and impacts from these kinds of research infrastructures. We discuss how research infrastructures are identified and referenced by scholars in the research literature and how those references are being collected and analyzed for the purposes of evaluating impact. Synthesizing common features of a wide range of studies, we identify notable challenges that impede the analysis of impact metrics for research infrastructures and outline key open research questions that can guide future research and applications related to such metrics.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.6, S.1341-1359
-
Wolfram, D.: Applied informetrics for information retrieval research (2003)
0.06
0.05589719 = product of:
0.16769157 = sum of:
0.10067343 = weight(_text_:applications in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10067343 = score(doc=4589,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.5836958 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017962547 = score(doc=4589,freq=4.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
0.0490556 = weight(_text_:systems in 4589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0490556 = score(doc=4589,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 4589, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4589)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- The author demonstrates how informetric analysis of information retrieval system content and use provides valuable insights that have applications for the modelling, design, and evaluation of information retrieval systems.
-
Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001)
0.04
0.04466423 = product of:
0.13399269 = sum of:
0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014968789 = score(doc=5767,freq=16.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02890629 = score(doc=5767,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
0.09011761 = weight(_text_:software in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09011761 = score(doc=5767,freq=14.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.5798329 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.4, S.297-308
-
Ravichandra Rao, I.K.; Sahoo, B.B.: Studies and research in informetrics at the Documentation Research and Training Centre (DRTC), ISI Bangalore (2006)
0.04
0.044628765 = product of:
0.1338863 = sum of:
0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017962547 = score(doc=1512,freq=16.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1512, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1512)
0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0245278 = score(doc=1512,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 1512, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1512)
0.091395944 = weight(_text_:software in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.091395944 = score(doc=1512,freq=10.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.58805794 = fieldWeight in 1512, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1512)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Contributions of DRTC to informetric studies and research are discussed. A report on recent work - a quantitative country-wise analysis of software literature based on the data from two bibliographic databases i.e. COMPENDEX and INSPEC is presented. The number of countries involved in R & D activities in software in the most productive group is increasing. The research contribution on software is decreasing in developed countries as compared to that in developing and less developed countries. India 's contribution is only 1.1% and it has remained constant over the period of 12 years 1989-2001. The number of countries involved in R&D activities in software has been increasing in the 1990s. It is also noted that higher the budget for higher education, higher the number of publications; and that higher the number of publications, higher the export as well as the domestic consumption of software.
- Source
- Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad
-
Jiang, Z.; Liu, X.; Chen, Y.: Recovering uncaptured citations in a scholarly network : a two-step citation analysis to estimate publication importance (2016)
0.03
0.031577006 = product of:
0.09473101 = sum of:
0.059322387 = weight(_text_:applications in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059322387 = score(doc=3018,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.34394607 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014968789 = score(doc=3018,freq=16.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020439833 = score(doc=3018,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- The citation relationships between publications, which are significant for assessing the importance of scholarly components within a network, have been used for various scientific applications. Missing citation metadata in scholarly databases, however, create problems for classical citation-based ranking algorithms and challenge the performance of citation-based retrieval systems. In this research, we utilize a two-step citation analysis method to investigate the importance of publications for which citation information is partially missing. First, we calculate the importance of the author and then use his importance to estimate the publication importance for some selected articles. To evaluate this method, we designed a simulation experiment-"random citation-missing"-to test the two-step citation analysis that we carried out with the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library (DL). In this experiment, we simulated different scenarios in a large-scale scientific digital library, from high-quality citation data, to very poor quality data, The results show that a two-step citation analysis can effectively uncover the importance of publications in different situations. More importantly, we found that the optimized impact from the importance of an author (first step) is exponentially increased when the quality of citation decreases. The findings from this study can further enhance citation-based publication-ranking algorithms for real-world applications.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1722-1735
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.03
0.03132182 = product of:
0.093965456 = sum of:
0.059322387 = weight(_text_:applications in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059322387 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.34394607 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015876798 = score(doc=2590,freq=18.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.018766273 = product of:
0.037532546 = sum of:
0.037532546 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037532546 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.27-54
-
Small, H.: Update on science mapping : creating large document spaces (1997)
0.03
0.030956313 = product of:
0.09286894 = sum of:
0.016567415 = weight(_text_:of in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016567415 = score(doc=410,freq=10.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028615767 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
0.047685754 = weight(_text_:software in 410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047685754 = score(doc=410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 410, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=410)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Science mapping projects have been revived by the advent of virtual reality (VR) software capable of navigating large sysnthetic 3 dimensional spaces. Unlike the earlier mapping efforts aimed at creating simple maps at either a global or local level, the focus is now on creating large scale maps displaying many thousands of documents which can be input into the new VR systems. Presents a general framework for creating large scale document spaces as well as some new methods which perform some of the individual processing steps. The methods are designed primarily for citation data but could be applied to other types of data, including hypertext links
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Vaughan, L.: Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science : extending ACA to the Web environment (2006)
0.03
0.030914713 = product of:
0.092744134 = sum of:
0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041947264 = score(doc=6113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
0.016735615 = weight(_text_:of in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016735615 = score(doc=6113,freq=20.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
0.034061253 = weight(_text_:software in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034061253 = score(doc=6113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Co-occurrence matrices, such as cocitation, coword, and colink matrices, have been used widely in the information sciences. However, confusion and controversy have hindered the proper statistical analysis of these data. The underlying problem, in our opinion, involved understanding the nature of various types of matrices. This article discusses the difference between a symmetrical cocitation matrix and an asymmetrical citation matrix as well as the appropriate statistical techniques that can be applied to each of these matrices, respectively. Similarity measures (such as the Pearson correlation coefficient or the cosine) should not be applied to the symmetrical cocitation matrix but can be applied to the asymmetrical citation matrix to derive the proximity matrix. The argument is illustrated with examples. The study then extends the application of co-occurrence matrices to the Web environment, in which the nature of the available data and thus data collection methods are different from those of traditional databases such as the Science Citation Index. A set of data collected with the Google Scholar search engine is analyzed by using both the traditional methods of multivariate analysis and the new visualization software Pajek, which is based on social network analysis and graph theory.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.12, S.1616-1628
-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.03
0.030798 = product of:
0.092393994 = sum of:
0.059322387 = weight(_text_:applications in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059322387 = score(doc=4147,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.34394607 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019801848 = score(doc=4147,freq=28.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
28.0 = termFreq=28.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
0.013269759 = product of:
0.026539518 = sum of:
0.026539518 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026539518 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 19:22:13
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 66(2010) no.5, S.681-705
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996)
0.03
0.030285552 = product of:
0.09085666 = sum of:
0.050336715 = weight(_text_:applications in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050336715 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2918479 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
0.024596233 = weight(_text_:of in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024596233 = score(doc=7659,freq=30.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
30.0 = termFreq=30.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
0.015923709 = product of:
0.031847417 = sum of:
0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031847417 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
-
Koulouri, X.; Ifrim, C.; Wallace, M.; Pop, F.: Making sense of citations (2017)
0.03
0.030140176 = product of:
0.09042053 = sum of:
0.050336715 = weight(_text_:applications in 3486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050336715 = score(doc=3486,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2918479 = fieldWeight in 3486, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3486)
0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 3486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015556021 = score(doc=3486,freq=12.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 3486, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3486)
0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 3486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0245278 = score(doc=3486,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3486, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3486)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- To this day the analysis of citations has been aimed mainly to the exploration of different ways to count them, such as the total count, the h-index or the s-index, in order to quantify a researcher's overall contribution and impact. In this work we show how the consideration of the structured metadata that accompany citations, such as the publication outlet in which they have appeared, can lead to a considerably more insightful understanding of the ways in which a researcher has impacted the work of others.
- Series
- Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI; 10151
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.03
0.029665582 = product of:
0.088996746 = sum of:
0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010584532 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.040879667 = weight(_text_:systems in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040879667 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.339541 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.037532546 = product of:
0.07506509 = sum of:
0.07506509 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07506509 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.03
0.02957736 = product of:
0.08873208 = sum of:
0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017962547 = score(doc=201,freq=16.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
0.054845825 = weight(_text_:systems in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054845825 = score(doc=201,freq=10.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.45554203 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
0.015923709 = product of:
0.031847417 = sum of:
0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031847417 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
- Date
- 3. 1.2007 17:22:03
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1263-1274
-
Tsay, M.-y.: Literature growth, journal characteristics, and suthor productivity in subject indexing, 1977 to 2000 (2004)
0.03
0.027787952 = product of:
0.08336385 = sum of:
0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 2070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017962547 = score(doc=2070,freq=16.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2070, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2070)
0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 2070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0245278 = score(doc=2070,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2070, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2070)
0.040873505 = weight(_text_:software in 2070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040873505 = score(doc=2070,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 2070, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2070)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This study employed the Perl program, Excel software, and some bibliometric techniques to investigate growth pattern, journal characteristics, and author productivity of the subject indexing literature from 1977 to 2000, based an the subject search of a descriptor field in the Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) database. The literature growth from 1977 to 2000 in subject indexing could be fitted well by the logistic curve. The Bradford plot of journal literature fits the typical Bradford-Zipf S-shaped curve. Twenty core journals making a significant contribution could be identified from the Bradford-Zipf distribution. Four major research topics in the area of subject indexing were identified as: (1) information organization, (2) information processing, (3) information storage and retrieval, and (4) information systems and services. It was also found that a vast majority of authors (76.7%) contributed only one article, which is a much larger percentage than the 60% of original Lotka's data. The 15 most productive authors and the key concepts of their research were identified.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.1, S.64-73
-
Hennemann, S.: Evaluating the performance of geographical locations within scientific networks using an aggregation-randomization-re-sampling approach (ARR) (2012)
0.03
0.026906682 = product of:
0.080720045 = sum of:
0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041947264 = score(doc=510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 510, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=510)
0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018332949 = score(doc=510,freq=24.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 510, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=510)
0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020439833 = score(doc=510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 510, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=510)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Knowledge creation and dissemination in science and technology systems are perceived as prerequisites for socioeconomic development. The efficiency of creating new knowledge is considered to have a geographical component, that is, some regions are more capable in terms of scientific knowledge production than others. This article presents a method of using a network representation of scientific interaction to assess the relative efficiency of regions with diverse boundaries in channeling knowledge through a science system. In a first step, a weighted aggregate of the betweenness centrality is produced from empirical data (aggregation). The subsequent randomization of this empirical network produces the necessary null model for significance testing and normalization (randomization). This step is repeated to provide greater confidence about the results (re-sampling). The results are robust estimates for the relative regional efficiency of brokering knowledge, which is discussed along with cross-sectional and longitudinal empirical examples. The network representation acts as a straightforward metaphor of conceptual ideas from economic geography and neighboring disciplines. However, the procedure is not limited to centrality measures, nor is it limited to geographical aggregates. Therefore, it offers a wide range of applications for scientometrics and beyond.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2393-2404
-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.03
0.026820354 = product of:
0.08046106 = sum of:
0.050336715 = weight(_text_:applications in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050336715 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2918479 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.014200641 = weight(_text_:of in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014200641 = score(doc=1350,freq=10.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.015923709 = product of:
0.031847417 = sum of:
0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031847417 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:12:35
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1929-1938
-
Harter, S.P.; Cheng, Y.-R.: Colinked descriptors : improving vocabulary selection for end-user searching (1996)
0.03
0.025467023 = product of:
0.07640107 = sum of:
0.010999769 = weight(_text_:of in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010999769 = score(doc=4216,freq=6.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0245278 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
0.040873505 = weight(_text_:software in 4216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040873505 = score(doc=4216,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 4216, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4216)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This article introduces a new concept and technique for information retrieval called 'colinked descriptors'. Borrowed from an analogous idea in bibliometrics - cocited references - colinked descriptors provide a theory and method for identifying search terms that, by hypothesis, will be superior to those entered initially by a searcher. The theory suggests a means of moving automatically from 2 or more initial search terms, to other terms that should be superior in retrieval performance to the 2 original terms. A research project designed to test this colinked descriptor hypothesis is reported. The results suggest that the approach is effective, although methodological problems in testing the idea are reported. Algorithms to generate colinked descriptors can be incorporated easily into system interfaces, front-end or pre-search systems, or help software, in any database that employs a thesaurus. The potential use of colinked descriptors is a strong argument for building richer and more complex thesauri that reflect as many legitimate links among descriptors as possible
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.4, S.311-325
-
Zuccala, A.: Author cocitation analysis is to intellectual structure as Web colink analysis is to ... ? (2006)
0.03
0.02546304 = product of:
0.07638912 = sum of:
0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 6008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041947264 = score(doc=6008,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 6008, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6008)
0.0140020205 = weight(_text_:of in 6008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0140020205 = score(doc=6008,freq=14.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 6008, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6008)
0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 6008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020439833 = score(doc=6008,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 6008, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6008)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Author Cocitation Analysis (ACA) and Web Colink Analysis (WCA) are examined as sister techniques in the related fields of bibliometrics and webometrics. Comparisons are made between the two techniques based on their data retrieval, mapping, and interpretation procedures, using mathematics as the subject in focus. An ACA is carried out and interpreted for a group of participants (authors) involved in an Isaac Newton Institute (2000) workshop-Singularity Theory and Its Applications to Wave Propagation Theory and Dynamical Systems-and compared/contrasted with a WCA for a list of international mathematics research institute home pages on the Web. Although the practice of ACA may be used to inform a WCA, the two techniques do not share many elements in common. The most important departure between ACA and WCA exists at the interpretive stage when ACA maps become meaningful in light of citation theory, and WCA maps require interpretation based on hyperlink theory. Much of the research concerning link theory and motivations for linking is still new; therefore further studies based on colinking are needed, mainly map-based studies, to understand what makes a Web colink structure meaningful.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.11, S.1487-1502
-
Aström, F.: Changes in the LIS research front : time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004 (2007)
0.03
0.02546304 = product of:
0.07638912 = sum of:
0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041947264 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
0.0140020205 = weight(_text_:of in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0140020205 = score(doc=329,freq=14.0), product of:
0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020439833 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.03917671 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Based on articles published in 1990-2004 in 21 library and information science (LIS) journals, a set of cocitation analyses was performed to study changes in research fronts over the last 15 years, where LIS is at now, and to discuss where it is heading. To study research fronts, here defined as current and influential cocited articles, a citations among documents methodology was applied; and to study changes, the analyses were time-sliced into three 5-year periods. The results show a stable structure of two distinct research fields: informetrics and information seeking and retrieval (ISR). However, experimental retrieval research and user oriented research have merged into one ISR field; and IR and informetrics also show signs of coming closer together, sharing research interests and methodologies, making informetrics research more visible in mainstream LIS research. Furthermore, the focus on the Internet, both in ISR research and in informetrics-where webometrics quickly has become a dominating research area-is an important change. The future is discussed in terms of LIS dependency on technology, how integration of research areas as well as technical systems can be expected to continue to characterize LIS research, and how webometrics will continue to develop and find applications.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.947-957
