Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0048795897 = product of:
  0.048795894 = sum of:
    0.048795894 = product of:
      0.07319384 = sum of:
        0.03442287 = weight(_text_:1990 in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03442287 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.248977 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
        0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877097 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

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.

0.003517376 = product of:
  0.03517376 = sum of:
    0.03517376 = product of:
      0.05276064 = sum of:
        0.040291972 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040291972 = score(doc=3809,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2746002 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
        0.012468665 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012468665 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0024520915 = product of:
  0.024520915 = sum of:
    0.024520915 = product of:
      0.07356274 = sum of:
        0.07356274 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356274 = score(doc=3338,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 3338, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3338)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.424-427

Year

2010

0.0020434097 = product of:
  0.020434096 = sum of:
    0.020434096 = product of:
      0.06130229 = sum of:
        0.06130229 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06130229 = score(doc=3622,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.41779095 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Journal of documentation. 66(2010) no.2, S.179-190

Year

2010

0.0016227098 = product of:
  0.016227098 = sum of:
    0.016227098 = product of:
      0.048681293 = sum of:
        0.048681293 = weight(_text_:1990 in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048681293 = score(doc=486,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.35210666 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers.

0.0013769149 = product of:
  0.013769149 = sum of:
    0.013769149 = product of:
      0.041307446 = sum of:
        0.041307446 = weight(_text_:1990 in 1310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041307446 = score(doc=1310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2987724 = fieldWeight in 1310, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1310)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

This work investigates recent claims that citation in a review article provokes a decline in a paper's later citation count; citations being given to the review article instead of the original paper. Using the Science Citation Index Expanded, we looked at the yearly percentages of lifetime citations of papers published in 1990 first cited in review articles in 1992 and 1995 in the field of biomedical research, and found that no significant change occurred after citation in a review article, regardless of the papers' citation activity or specialty. Additional comparison was done for papers from the field of clinical research, and this yielded no meaningful results to support the notion that review articles have any substantial effect on the citation count of the papers they review.

0.0012923657 = product of:
  0.012923657 = sum of:
    0.012923657 = product of:
      0.03877097 = sum of:
        0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877097 = score(doc=3316,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 3316, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3316)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.126-131

0.0012923657 = product of:
  0.012923657 = sum of:
    0.012923657 = product of:
      0.03877097 = sum of:
        0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877097 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

0.0012923657 = product of:
  0.012923657 = sum of:
    0.012923657 = product of:
      0.03877097 = sum of:
        0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877097 = score(doc=1229,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 1229, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1229)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.

0.0011755573 = product of:
  0.011755573 = sum of:
    0.011755573 = product of:
      0.035266716 = sum of:
        0.035266716 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035266716 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35