Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Marion, L.S.; McCain, K.W.: Contrasting views of software engineering journals : author cocitation choices and indexer vocabulary assignments (2001) 0.01
    0.0130871665 = product of:
      0.052348666 = sum of:
        0.052348666 = product of:
          0.10469733 = sum of:
            0.10469733 = weight(_text_:software in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10469733 = score(doc=5767,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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
  2. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = product of:
          0.098666325 = sum of:
            0.098666325 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.098666325 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  3. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.01
    0.012333291 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = product of:
          0.098666325 = sum of:
            0.098666325 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.098666325 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  4. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.01
    0.010901191 = product of:
      0.043604765 = sum of:
        0.043604765 = product of:
          0.08720953 = sum of:
            0.08720953 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08720953 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  5. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.01
    0.007708307 = product of:
      0.030833228 = sum of:
        0.030833228 = product of:
          0.061666455 = sum of:
            0.061666455 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.061666455 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  6. Small, H.: Visualizing science by citation mapping (1999) 0.01
    0.006925077 = product of:
      0.027700309 = sum of:
        0.027700309 = product of:
          0.055400617 = sum of:
            0.055400617 = weight(_text_:software in 3920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.055400617 = score(doc=3920,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 3920, 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=3920)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Science mapping is discussed in the general context of information visualization. Attempts to construct maps of science using citation data are reviewed, focusing on the use of co-citation clusters. New work is reported on a dataset of about 36.000 documents using simplified methods for ordination, and nesting maps hierarchically. an overall map of the dataset shows the multidisciplinary breadth of the document sample, and submaps allow drilling down the document level. An effort to visualize these data using advanced virtual reality software is described, and the creation of document pathways through the map is seen as a realization of Bush's associative trails
  7. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01
    0.0065407157 = product of:
      0.026162863 = sum of:
        0.026162863 = product of:
          0.052325726 = sum of:
            0.052325726 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052325726 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  8. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.01
    0.0061666453 = product of:
      0.024666581 = sum of:
        0.024666581 = product of:
          0.049333163 = sum of:
            0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049333163 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  9. Lawrence, S.; Giles, C.L.; Bollaker, K.: Digital libraries and Autonomous Citation Indexing (1999) 0.01
    0.0059357807 = product of:
      0.023743123 = sum of:
        0.023743123 = product of:
          0.047486246 = sum of:
            0.047486246 = weight(_text_:software in 4951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047486246 = score(doc=4951,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 4951, 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=4951)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Autonomous Citation Indexing (ACI) automates the construction of citation indexes - Lower cost, wider availability: ACI is completely autonomous - no manual effort is required. This should result in lower cost and wider availability. Broader coverage: Because no manual effort is required, there are few barriers to indexing a broader range of literature, compared to indexes like the Science Citation Index that require manual effort. More timely feedback: Conference papers, technical reports, and preprints can be indexed, providing far more timely feedback in many cases (often such publications appear far in advance of corresponding journal publications). Citation context: ACI groups together the context of citations to a given article, allowing researchers to easily see what is being said and why the article was cited. Benefits for both literature search and evaluation. Freely available: Our implementation of ACI is available at no cost for non-commercial use. Several orgnizations have requested the software and expressed interest in providing an index within their domain, or in using ACI within their own digital libraries.
  10. Leydesdorff, L.: Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in Journal Citation Reports (2004) 0.01
    0.0059357807 = product of:
      0.023743123 = sum of:
        0.023743123 = product of:
          0.047486246 = sum of:
            0.047486246 = weight(_text_:software in 4427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047486246 = score(doc=4427,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 4427, 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=4427)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix derived from Journal Citation Reports 2001 can be decomposed into a unique subject classification using the graph-analytical algorithm of bi-connected components. This technique was recently incorporated in software tools for social network analysis. The matrix can be assessed in terms of its decomposability using articulation points which indicate overlap between the components. The articulation points of this set did not exhibit a next-order network of "general science" journals. However, the clusters differ in size and in terms of the internal density of their relations. A full classification of the journals is provided in the Appendix. The clusters can also be extracted and mapped for the visualization.
  11. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.01
    0.005395815 = product of:
      0.02158326 = sum of:
        0.02158326 = product of:
          0.04316652 = sum of:
            0.04316652 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04316652 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  12. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.01
    0.005395815 = product of:
      0.02158326 = sum of:
        0.02158326 = product of:
          0.04316652 = sum of:
            0.04316652 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04316652 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  13. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01
    0.005395815 = product of:
      0.02158326 = sum of:
        0.02158326 = product of:
          0.04316652 = sum of:
            0.04316652 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04316652 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  14. White, H.D.: Citation analysis : history (2009) 0.00
    0.0049464838 = product of:
      0.019785935 = sum of:
        0.019785935 = product of:
          0.03957187 = sum of:
            0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03957187 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 3763, 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=3763)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    References from publications are at the same time citations to other publications. This entry introduces some of the practical uses of citation data in science and scholarship. At the individual level citations identify and permit the retrieval of specific editions of works, while also suggesting their subject matter, authority, and age. Through citation indexes, retrievals may include not only the earlier items referred to by a given work, but also the later items that cite that given work in turn. Some technical notes on retrieval are included here. Counts of citations received over time, and measures derived from them, reveal the varying impacts of works, authors, journals, organizations, and countries. This has obvious implications for the evaluation of, e.g., library collections, academics, research teams, and science policies. When treated as linkages between pairs of publications, references and citations reveal intellectual ties. Several kinds of links have been defined, such as cocitation, bibliographic coupling, and intercitation. In the aggregate, these links form networks that compactly suggest the intellectual histories of research specialties and disciplines, especially when the networks are visualized through mapping software. Citation analysis is of course not without critics, who have long pointed out imperfections in the data or in analytical techniques. However, the criticisms have generally been met by strong counterarguments from proponents.
  15. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.00
    0.0046249838 = product of:
      0.018499935 = sum of:
        0.018499935 = product of:
          0.03699987 = sum of:
            0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03699987 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
  16. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.00
    0.0046249838 = product of:
      0.018499935 = sum of:
        0.018499935 = product of:
          0.03699987 = sum of:
            0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03699987 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  17. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.00
    0.0046249838 = product of:
      0.018499935 = sum of:
        0.018499935 = product of:
          0.03699987 = sum of:
            0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03699987 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
  18. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.00
    0.0046249838 = product of:
      0.018499935 = sum of:
        0.018499935 = product of:
          0.03699987 = sum of:
            0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03699987 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  19. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.00
    0.0046249838 = product of:
      0.018499935 = sum of:
        0.018499935 = product of:
          0.03699987 = sum of:
            0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03699987 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
  20. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.00
    0.0046249838 = product of:
      0.018499935 = sum of:
        0.018499935 = product of:
          0.03699987 = sum of:
            0.03699987 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03699987 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045514934 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05