Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.0054722265 = product of:
  0.054722264 = sum of:
    0.054722264 = product of:
      0.0820834 = sum of:
        0.06130229 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06130229 = score(doc=4200,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.41779095 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
        0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 4200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02078111 = score(doc=4200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4200, 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=4200)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:29:23

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2544-2558

Year

2010

0.0024520915 = product of:
  0.024520915 = sum of:
    0.024520915 = product of:
      0.07356274 = sum of:
        0.07356274 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356274 = score(doc=3327,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 3327, 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=3327)
      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.392-404

Year

2010

0.0024520915 = product of:
  0.024520915 = sum of:
    0.024520915 = product of:
      0.07356274 = sum of:
        0.07356274 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356274 = score(doc=3574,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 3574, 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=3574)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1464-1475

Year

2010

0.0024177951 = product of:
  0.02417795 = sum of:
    0.02417795 = product of:
      0.072533846 = sum of:
        0.072533846 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072533846 = score(doc=4106,freq=7.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.4943369 = fieldWeight in 4106, product of:
              2.6457512 = tf(freq=7.0), with freq of:
                7.0 = termFreq=7.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4106)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The uptake of social network sites (SNSs) has been highly trend-driven, with Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook being successively the most popular. Given that teens are often early adopters of communication technologies, it seems reasonable to assume that the typical user of any particular SNS would change over time, probably becoming older and covering different segments of the population. This article analyzes changes in MySpace self-reported member demographics and behavior from 2007 to 2010 using four large samples of members and focusing on the United States. The results indicate that despite its take-up rate declining, with only about 1 in 10 members being active a year after joining, the dominant (modal) age for active U.S. members remains midadolescence, but has shifted by about 2 years from 15 to 17, and the U.S. dominance of MySpace is shrinking. There also has been a dramatic increase in the median number of Friends for new U.S. members, from 12 to 96-probably due to MySpace's automated Friend Finder. Some factors show little change, however, including the female majority, the 5% minority gay membership, and the approximately 50% private profiles. In addition, there has been an increase in the proportion of Latino/Hispanic U.S. members, suggesting a shifting ethnic profile. Overall, MySpace has surprisingly stable membership demographics and is apparently maintaining its primary youth appeal, perhaps because of its music orientation.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.11, S.2311-2323

Year

2010

0.0021932174 = product of:
  0.021932174 = sum of:
    0.021932174 = product of:
      0.06579652 = sum of:
        0.06579652 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06579652 = score(doc=1258,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.4484203 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Journal-based citations are an important source of data for impact indices. However, the impact of journal articles extends beyond formal scholarly discourse. Measuring online scholarly impact calls for new indices, complementary to the older ones. This article examines a possible alternative metric source, blog posts aggregated at ResearchBlogging.org, which discuss peer-reviewed articles and provide full bibliographic references. Articles reviewed in these blogs therefore receive "blog citations." We hypothesized that articles receiving blog citations close to their publication time receive more journal citations later than the articles in the same journal published in the same year that did not receive such blog citations. Statistically significant evidence for articles published in 2009 and 2010 support this hypothesis for seven of 12 journals (58%) in 2009 and 13 of 19 journals (68%) in 2010. We suggest, based on these results, that blog citations can be used as an alternative metric source.

0.0020434097 = product of:
  0.020434096 = sum of:
    0.020434096 = product of:
      0.06130229 = sum of:
        0.06130229 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06130229 = score(doc=3966,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.41779095 = fieldWeight in 3966, 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=3966)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1734-1744

Year

2010

0.0019874056 = product of:
  0.019874055 = sum of:
    0.019874055 = product of:
      0.059622165 = sum of:
        0.059622165 = weight(_text_:1990 in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059622165 = score(doc=4465,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.43124083 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.

0.0015508389 = product of:
  0.015508389 = sum of:
    0.015508389 = product of:
      0.046525165 = sum of:
        0.046525165 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046525165 = score(doc=3322,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.31708103 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
      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.190-199

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.

0.0012923657 = product of:
  0.012923657 = sum of:
    0.012923657 = product of:
      0.03877097 = sum of:
        0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877097 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 1863, 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=1863)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Blogs that cite academic articles have emerged as a potential source of alternative impact metrics for the visibility of the blogged articles. Nevertheless, to evaluate more fully the value of blog citations, it is necessary to investigate whether research blogs focus on particular types of articles or give new perspectives on scientific discourse. Therefore, we studied the characteristics of peer-reviewed references in blogs and the typical content of blog posts to gain insight into bloggers' motivations. The sample consisted of 391 blog posts from 2010 to 2012 in Researchblogging.org's health category. The bloggers mostly cited recent research articles or reviews from top multidisciplinary and general medical journals. Using content analysis methods, we created a general classification scheme for blog post content with 10 major topic categories, each with several subcategories. The results suggest that health research bloggers rarely self-cite and that the vast majority of their blog posts (90%) include a general discussion of the issue covered in the article, with more than one quarter providing health-related advice based on the article(s) covered. These factors suggest a genuine attempt to engage with a wider, nonacademic audience. Nevertheless, almost 30% of the posts included some criticism of the issues being discussed.

0.0012923657 = product of:
  0.012923657 = sum of:
    0.012923657 = product of:
      0.03877097 = sum of:
        0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877097 = score(doc=3766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 3766, 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=3766)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

SlideShare is a free social website that aims to help users distribute and find presentations. Owned by LinkedIn since 2012, it targets a professional audience but may give value to scholarship through creating a long-term record of the content of talks. This article tests this hypothesis by analyzing sets of general and scholarly related SlideShare documents using content and citation analysis and popularity statistics reported on the site. The results suggest that academics, students, and teachers are a minority of SlideShare uploaders, especially since 2010, with most documents not being directly related to scholarship or teaching. About two thirds of uploaded SlideShare documents are presentation slides, with the remainder often being files associated with presentations or video recordings of talks. SlideShare is therefore a presentation-centered site with a predominantly professional user base. Although a minority of the uploaded SlideShare documents are cited by, or cite, academic publications, probably too few articles are cited by SlideShare to consider extracting SlideShare citations for research evaluation. Nevertheless, scholars should consider SlideShare to be a potential source of academic and nonacademic information, particularly in library and information science, education, and business.

0.0012212053 = product of:
  0.012212053 = sum of:
    0.012212053 = product of:
      0.03663616 = sum of:
        0.03663616 = weight(_text_:problem in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03663616 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.

0.0011083259 = product of:
  0.011083259 = sum of:
    0.011083259 = product of:
      0.033249777 = sum of:
        0.033249777 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033249777 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.0010176711 = product of:
  0.010176711 = sum of:
    0.010176711 = product of:
      0.03053013 = sum of:
        0.03053013 = weight(_text_:problem in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03053013 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

0.0010176711 = product of:
  0.010176711 = sum of:
    0.010176711 = product of:
      0.03053013 = sum of:
        0.03053013 = weight(_text_:problem in 4490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03053013 = score(doc=4490,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 4490, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4490)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Web impact factors, the proposed web equivalent of impact factors for journals, can be calculated by using search engines. It has been found that the results are problematic because of the variable coverage of search engines as well as their ability to give significantly different results over short periods of time. The fundamental problem is that although some search engines provide a functionality that is capable of being used for impact calculations, this is not their primary task and therefore they do not give guarantees as to performance in this respect. In this paper, a bespoke web crawler designed specifically for the calculation of reliable WIFs is presented. This crawler was used to calculate WIFs for a number of UK universities, and the results of these calculations are discussed. The principal findings were that with certain restrictions, WIFs can be calculated reliably, but do not correlate with accepted research rankings owing to the variety of material hosted on university servers. Changes to the calculations to improve the fit of the results to research rankings are proposed, but there are still inherent problems undermining the reliability of the calculation. These problems still apply if the WIF scores are taken on their own as indicators of the general impact of any area of the Internet, but with care would not apply to online journals.

0.0010176711 = product of:
  0.010176711 = sum of:
    0.010176711 = product of:
      0.03053013 = sum of:
        0.03053013 = weight(_text_:problem in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03053013 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

9.79631E-4 = product of:
  0.009796309 = sum of:
    0.009796309 = product of:
      0.029388927 = sum of:
        0.029388927 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029388927 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

8.3124434E-4 = product of:
  0.008312443 = sum of:
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 4345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=4345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4345, 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=4345)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

22. 1.2011 14:27:06

8.3124434E-4 = product of:
  0.008312443 = sum of:
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

8.3124434E-4 = product of:
  0.008312443 = sum of:
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Date

16.11.2016 11:07:22