Search (264 results, page 1 of 14)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.31 
    0.31182194 = product of:
  0.77955484 = sum of:
    0.19488871 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19488871 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26007444 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03067635 = 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)
    0.19488871 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19488871 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26007444 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03067635 = 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)
    0.19488871 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19488871 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26007444 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03067635 = 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)
    0.19488871 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19488871 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.26007444 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03067635 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(4/10)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.01 
    0.014038912 = product of:
  0.14038911 = sum of:
    0.14038911 = product of:
      0.21058366 = sum of:
        0.15239656 = weight(_text_:1990 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15239656 = score(doc=6902,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            1.1022682 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
        0.058187105 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058187105 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.368-375
    Year
    1990
  3. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.01 
    0.014038912 = product of:
  0.14038911 = sum of:
    0.14038911 = product of:
      0.21058366 = sum of:
        0.15239656 = weight(_text_:1990 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15239656 = score(doc=4689,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            1.1022682 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
        0.058187105 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058187105 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.376-386
    Year
    1990
  4. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010) 0.01 
    0.0116506275 = product of:
  0.11650627 = sum of:
    0.11650627 = sum of:
      0.03442287 = weight(_text_:1990 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03442287 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03067635 = queryNorm
          0.248977 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
      0.06130229 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06130229 = score(doc=4147,freq=5.0), product of:
          0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03067635 = queryNorm
          0.41779095 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
      0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02078111 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03067635 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    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
    Year
    2010
  5. Eck, N.J. van; Waltman, L.; Dekker, R.; Berg, J. van den: ¬A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping : multidimensional scaling and VOS (2010) 0.01 
    0.007346594 = product of:
  0.036732968 = sum of:
    0.012212053 = product of:
      0.03663616 = sum of:
        0.03663616 = weight(_text_:problem in 4112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03663616 = score(doc=4112,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4112, 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=4112)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.024520915 = product of:
      0.07356274 = sum of:
        0.07356274 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356274 = score(doc=4112,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 4112, 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=4112)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    VOS is a new mapping technique that can serve as an alternative to the well-known technique of multidimensional scaling (MDS). We present an extensive comparison between the use of MDS and the use of VOS for constructing bibliometric maps. In our theoretical analysis, we show the mathematical relation between the two techniques. In our empirical analysis, we use the techniques for constructing maps of authors, journals, and keywords. Two commonly used approaches to bibliometric mapping, both based on MDS, turn out to produce maps that suffer from artifacts. Maps constructed using VOS turn out not to have this problem. We conclude that in general maps constructed using VOS provide a more satisfactory representation of a dataset than maps constructed using well-known MDS approaches.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2405-2416
    Year
    2010
  6. Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010) 0.01 
    0.006566672 = product of:
  0.06566672 = sum of:
    0.06566672 = product of:
      0.09850007 = sum of:
        0.07356274 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07356274 = score(doc=4000,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    28. 9.2010 12:54:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2086-2096
    Year
    2010
  7. Kurtz, M.; Bollen, J.: Usage bibliometrics (2010) 0.01 
    0.0065389113 = product of:
  0.06538911 = sum of:
    0.06538911 = product of:
      0.19616732 = sum of:
        0.19616732 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19616732 = score(doc=4206,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            1.336931 = fieldWeight in 4206, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4206)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 44(2010), S.xxx-xxx
    Year
    2010
  8. Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015) 0.01 
    0.005950221 = product of:
  0.059502207 = sum of:
    0.059502207 = product of:
      0.08925331 = sum of:
        0.03442287 = weight(_text_:1990 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03442287 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.248977 = fieldWeight in 2047, 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=2047)
        0.054830432 = weight(_text_:2010 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054830432 = score(doc=2047,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.37368357 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US.
  9. Engqvist, L.; Frommen, J.G.: New insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations? (2010) 0.00 
    0.004904183 = product of:
  0.04904183 = sum of:
    0.04904183 = product of:
      0.14712548 = sum of:
        0.14712548 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14712548 = score(doc=3594,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            1.0026982 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
      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.1514-1516
    Year
    2010
  10. Egghe, L.: ¬The Hirsch index and related impact measures (2010) 0.00 
    0.004904183 = product of:
  0.04904183 = sum of:
    0.04904183 = product of:
      0.14712548 = sum of:
        0.14712548 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14712548 = score(doc=1597,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            1.0026982 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 44(2010) no.1, S.65-114
    Year
    2010
  11. Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Cronin, B.: ¬A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years (2012) 0.00 
    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.
  12. Kronegger, L.; Mali, F.; Ferligoj, A.; Doreian, P.: Classifying scientific disciplines in Slovenia : a study of the evolution of collaboration structures (2015) 0.00 
    0.0047641667 = product of:
  0.047641665 = sum of:
    0.047641665 = product of:
      0.0714625 = sum of:
        0.046525165 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046525165 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.31708103 = fieldWeight in 1639, 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=1639)
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1639, 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=1639)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    We explore classifying scientific disciplines including their temporal features by focusing on their collaboration structures over time. Bibliometric data for Slovenian researchers registered at the Slovenian Research Agency were used. These data were obtained from the Slovenian National Current Research Information System. We applied a recently developed hierarchical clustering procedure for symbolic data to the coauthorship structure of scientific disciplines. To track temporal changes, we divided data for the period 1986-2010 into five 5-year time periods. The clusters of disciplines for the Slovene science system revealed 5 clusters of scientific disciplines that, in large measure, correspond with the official national classification of sciences. However, there were also some significant differences pointing to the need for a dynamic classification system of sciences to better characterize them. Implications stemming from these results, especially with regard to classifying scientific disciplines, understanding the collaborative structure of science, and research and development policies, are discussed.
    Date
    21. 1.2015 14:55:22
  13. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.00 
    0.004416318 = product of:
  0.044163182 = sum of:
    0.044163182 = product of:
      0.06624477 = sum of:
        0.041307446 = weight(_text_:1990 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041307446 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2987724 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  14. Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009) 0.00 
    0.0041048992 = product of:
  0.020524496 = sum of:
    0.012212053 = product of:
      0.03663616 = sum of:
        0.03663616 = weight(_text_:problem in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03663616 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:05:07
  15. D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011) 0.00 
    0.0041048992 = product of:
  0.020524496 = sum of:
    0.012212053 = product of:
      0.03663616 = sum of:
        0.03663616 = weight(_text_:problem in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03663616 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    National exercises for the evaluation of research activity by universities are becoming regular practice in ever more countries. These exercises have mainly been conducted through the application of peer-review methods. Bibliometrics has not been able to offer a valid large-scale alternative because of almost overwhelming difficulties in identifying the true author of each publication. We will address this problem by presenting a heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometric datasets for large-scale research assessments. The application proposed concerns the Italian university system, comprising 80 universities and a research staff of over 60,000 scientists. The key advantage of the proposed approach is the ease of implementation. The algorithms are of practical application and have considerably better scalability and expandability properties than state-of-the-art unsupervised approaches. Moreover, the performance in terms of precision and recall, which can be further improved, seems thoroughly adequate for the typical needs of large-scale bibliometric research assessments.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:06:52
  16. Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011) 0.00 
    0.0041048992 = product of:
  0.020524496 = sum of:
    0.012212053 = product of:
      0.03663616 = sum of:
        0.03663616 = weight(_text_:problem in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03663616 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    This is a study of coverage and overlap in second-generation social sciences and humanities journal lists, with attention paid to curation and the judgment of scholarliness. We identify four factors underpinning coverage shortfalls: journal language, country, publisher size, and age. Analyzing these factors turns our attention to the process of assessing a journal as scholarly, which is a necessary foundation for every list of scholarly journals. Although scholarliness should be a quality inherent in the journal, coverage falls short because groups assessing scholarliness have different perspectives on the social sciences and humanities literature. That the four factors shape perspectives on the literature points to a deeper problem of fragmentation within the scholarly community. We propose reducing this fragmentation as the best method to reduce coverage shortfalls.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:21:28
  17. Campanario, J.M.: Distribution of ranks of articles and citations in journals (2010) 0.00 
    0.0040868195 = product of:
  0.040868193 = sum of:
    0.040868193 = product of:
      0.12260458 = sum of:
        0.12260458 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12260458 = score(doc=3340,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.8355819 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      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.419-423
    Year
    2010
  18. Schubert, T.; Michels, C.: Placing articles in the large publisher nations : is there a "free lunch" in terms of higher impact? (2013) 0.00 
    0.0039701387 = product of:
  0.039701387 = sum of:
    0.039701387 = product of:
      0.05955208 = sum of:
        0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877097 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
        0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02078111 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    This paper deals with the role of a journal's publisher country in determining the expected citation rates of the articles published in it. We analyze whether a paper has a higher citation rate when it is published in one of the large publisher nations, the U.S., U.K., or the Netherlands, compared to a hypothetical situation when the same paper is published in journals of different origin. This would constitute a "free lunch," which could be explained by a Matthew effect visible on the country-level, similar to the well-documented Matthew effect on the author-level. We first use a simulation model that highlights increasing citation returns to quality as the central key condition on which such a Matthew effect may emerge. Then we use an international bibliometric panel data set of forty-nine countries for the years 2000-2010 and show that such a "free lunch" implied by this Matthew effect can be observed for top journals from the U.S. and depending on the specification also from the U.K. and the Netherlands, while there is no effect for lower-ranked American journals and negative effects for lower-ranked British journals as well as those coming from the Netherlands.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:45:49
  19. Stock, W.G.: Themenanalytische informetrische Methoden (1990) 0.00 
    0.003934862 = product of:
  0.03934862 = sum of:
    0.03934862 = product of:
      0.11804586 = sum of:
        0.11804586 = weight(_text_:1990 in 5065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11804586 = score(doc=5065,freq=3.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.85381323 = fieldWeight in 5065, product of:
              1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
                3.0 = termFreq=3.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5065)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Year
    1990
  20. Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006) 0.00 
    0.0036802657 = product of:
  0.036802657 = sum of:
    0.036802657 = product of:
      0.05520398 = sum of:
        0.03442287 = weight(_text_:1990 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03442287 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.248977 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
        0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02078111 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:11:05

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 238
  • d 23
  • ? 1
  • chi 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 254
  • m 8
  • el 4
  • b 1
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications