Search (42 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Ravichandra Rao, I.K.; Sahoo, B.B.: Studies and research in informetrics at the Documentation Research and Training Centre (DRTC), ISI Bangalore (2006) 0.01 
    0.01327281 = product of:
  0.05309124 = sum of:
    0.05309124 = product of:
      0.10618248 = sum of:
        0.10618248 = weight(_text_:software in 1512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10618248 = score(doc=1512,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.58805794 = fieldWeight in 1512, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Contributions of DRTC to informetric studies and research are discussed. A report on recent work - a quantitative country-wise analysis of software literature based on the data from two bibliographic databases i.e. COMPENDEX and INSPEC is presented. The number of countries involved in R & D activities in software in the most productive group is increasing. The research contribution on software is decreasing in developed countries as compared to that in developing and less developed countries. India 's contribution is only 1.1% and it has remained constant over the period of 12 years 1989-2001. The number of countries involved in R&D activities in software has been increasing in the 1990s. It is also noted that higher the budget for higher education, higher the number of publications; and that higher the number of publications, higher the export as well as the domestic consumption of software.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  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. Newby, G.B.; Greenberg, J.; Jones, P.: Open source software development and Lotka's law : bibliometric patterns in programming (2003) 0.01 
    0.010281074 = product of:
  0.041124295 = sum of:
    0.041124295 = product of:
      0.08224859 = sum of:
        0.08224859 = weight(_text_:software in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08224859 = score(doc=5140,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.4555077 = fieldWeight in 5140, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Newby, Greenberg, and Jones analyze programming productivity of open source software by counting registered developers contributions found in the Linux Software Map and in Scourceforge. Using seven years of data from a subset of the Linux directory tree LSM data provided 4503 files with 3341 unique author names. The distribution follows Lotka's Law with an exponent of 2.82 as verified by the Kolmolgorov-Smirnov one sample goodness of fit test. Scourceforge data is broken into developers and administrators, but when both were used as authors the Lotka distribution exponent of 2.55 produces the lowest error. This would not be significant by the K-S test but the 3.54% maximum error would indicate a fit and calls into question the appropriateness of K-S for large populations of authors.
  6. Garfield, E.; Paris, S.W.; Stock, W.G.: HistCite(TM) : a software tool for informetric analysis of citation linkage (2006) 0.01 
    0.009793539 = product of:
  0.039174154 = sum of:
    0.039174154 = product of:
      0.07834831 = sum of:
        0.07834831 = weight(_text_:software in 79) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07834831 = score(doc=79,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.43390724 = fieldWeight in 79, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=79)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    HistCite(TM) is a software tool for analyzing and visualizing direct citation linkages between scientific papers. Its inputs are bibliographic records (with cited references) from "Web of Knowledge" or other sources. Its outputs are various tables and graphs with informetric indicators about the knowledge domain under study. As an example we analyze informetrically the literature about Alexius Meinong, an Austrian philosopher and psychologist. The article shortly discusses the informetric functionality of "Web of Knowledge" and shows broadly the possibilities that HistCite offers to its users (e.g. scientists, scientometricans and science journalists).
  7. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.01 
    0.0092499675 = product of:
  0.03699987 = sum of:
    0.03699987 = product of:
      0.07399974 = sum of:
        0.07399974 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07399974 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  8. Petersen, A.; Münch, V.: STN® AnaVist(TM) holt verborgenes Wissen aus Recherche-Ergebnissen : Neue Software analysiert und visualisiert Marktaufteilung, Forschung und Patentaktivitäten (2005) 0.01 
    0.007914375 = product of:
  0.0316575 = sum of:
    0.0316575 = product of:
      0.063315 = sum of:
        0.063315 = weight(_text_:software in 3984) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063315 = score(doc=3984,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.35064998 = fieldWeight in 3984, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3984)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    "Im 21. Jahrhundert ist die entscheidende Herausforderung an Informationsdienstleister nicht, Informationen zugänglich, sondern sie optimal nutzbar zu machen", sagt Sabine Brünger-Weilandt, Geschäftsführerin von FIZ Karlsruhe, das den Online-Dienst STN International in internationaler Kooperation betreibt. Informationsprofis, so Brünger-Weilandt weiter, bräuchten hockentwickelte Software für strategisches Informationsmanagement. Als "Antwort auf diesen Bedarf" hat STN International eine neue Software zur Analyse und Visualisierung (A&V) von Rechercheergebnissen aus STN-Datenbanken entwickelt. STN® AnaVistT(TM) wurde auf der DGI Online-Tagung Ende Mai in Frankfurt am Main und auf Benutzertreffen in Frankfurt am Main, München und Essen vorgestellt. Seit 18. Juli 2005 ist das neue A&V-Werkzeug für die öffentliche Nutzung freigegeben (www.stn-international.de).
    Die wichtigsten Funktionen von STN AnaVist sind: - Inhalte aus mehreren Datenbanken sind gleichzeitig auswertbar - Nutzer können Daten aus unterschiedlichen Ouellen suchen, analysieren und visualisieren, u.a. aus der Chemiedatenbank CAplusSM, der Patentdatenbank PCTFULL, und US-amerikanischen Volltextdatenbanken. - Einzigartige Beziehungen zwischen Datenelementen-nur STN AnaVist bietet die Möglichkeit, Beziehungen zwischen sieben unterschiedlichen Feldern aus Datenbankdokumenten - z.B., Firmen, Erfindern, Veröffentlichungsjahren und Konzepten-darzustellen. - Gruppierung und Bereinigung von Daten - vor der Analyse werden Firmen und ihre unterschiedlichen Namensvarianten von einem "Company Name Thesaurus" zusammengefasst. - Konzept-Standardisierung - Durch das CAS-Vokabular werden Fachbegriffe datenbankübergreifend standardisiert, so dass weniger Streuung auftritt. - Interaktive Präsentation der Beziehungen zwischen Daten und Diagrammenwährend der Auswertung können Daten zum besseren Erkennen der Beziehungen farblich hervorgehoben werden. - Flexible Erstellung der auszuwertenden Rechercheergebnisse - Rechercheergebnisse, die als Ausgangsdatensatz für die Analyse verwendet werden sollen, können auf zwei Arten gewonnen werden: zum einen über die in STN® AnaVist(TM) integrierte Konzept-Suchfunktion, zum anderen durch problemlose Übernahme von Suchergebnissen aus der bewährten Software STN Express® with Discover! TM Analysis Edition, Version 8.0
  9. Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006) 0.01 
    0.0065407157 = product of:
  0.026162863 = sum of:
    0.026162863 = product of:
      0.052325726 = sum of:
        0.052325726 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052325726 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, 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=5275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:20:22
  10. 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
  11. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.01 
    0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
  12. Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007) 0.01 
    0.0061666453 = product of:
  0.024666581 = sum of:
    0.024666581 = product of:
      0.049333163 = sum of:
        0.049333163 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049333163 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    30.12.2007 11:22:39
  13. Tsay, M.-y.: Literature growth, journal characteristics, and suthor productivity in subject indexing, 1977 to 2000 (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 2070) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486246 = score(doc=2070,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 2070, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2070)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This study employed the Perl program, Excel software, and some bibliometric techniques to investigate growth pattern, journal characteristics, and author productivity of the subject indexing literature from 1977 to 2000, based an the subject search of a descriptor field in the Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) database. The literature growth from 1977 to 2000 in subject indexing could be fitted well by the logistic curve. The Bradford plot of journal literature fits the typical Bradford-Zipf S-shaped curve. Twenty core journals making a significant contribution could be identified from the Bradford-Zipf distribution. Four major research topics in the area of subject indexing were identified as: (1) information organization, (2) information processing, (3) information storage and retrieval, and (4) information systems and services. It was also found that a vast majority of authors (76.7%) contributed only one article, which is a much larger percentage than the 60% of original Lotka's data. The 15 most productive authors and the key concepts of their research were identified.
  14. 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.
  15. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.01 
    0.0054505956 = product of:
  0.021802383 = sum of:
    0.021802383 = product of:
      0.043604765 = sum of:
        0.043604765 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043604765 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  16. Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003) 0.01 
    0.005395815 = product of:
  0.02158326 = sum of:
    0.02158326 = product of:
      0.04316652 = sum of:
        0.04316652 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04316652 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    29. 3.2003 19:22:48
  17. Leydesdorff, L.; Vaughan, L.: Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science : extending ACA to the Web environment (2006) 0.00 
    0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=6113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Co-occurrence matrices, such as cocitation, coword, and colink matrices, have been used widely in the information sciences. However, confusion and controversy have hindered the proper statistical analysis of these data. The underlying problem, in our opinion, involved understanding the nature of various types of matrices. This article discusses the difference between a symmetrical cocitation matrix and an asymmetrical citation matrix as well as the appropriate statistical techniques that can be applied to each of these matrices, respectively. Similarity measures (such as the Pearson correlation coefficient or the cosine) should not be applied to the symmetrical cocitation matrix but can be applied to the asymmetrical citation matrix to derive the proximity matrix. The argument is illustrated with examples. The study then extends the application of co-occurrence matrices to the Web environment, in which the nature of the available data and thus data collection methods are different from those of traditional databases such as the Science Citation Index. A set of data collected with the Google Scholar search engine is analyzed by using both the traditional methods of multivariate analysis and the new visualization software Pajek, which is based on social network analysis and graph theory.
  18. 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.
  19. Jacso, P.: Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster (2008) 0.00 
    0.0049464838 = product of:
  0.019785935 = sum of:
    0.019785935 = product of:
      0.03957187 = sum of:
        0.03957187 = weight(_text_:software in 5586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03957187 = score(doc=5586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18056466 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 5586, 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=5586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper focuses on the practical limitations in the content and software of the databases that are used to calculate the h-index for assessing the publishing productivity and impact of researchers. To celebrate F. W. Lancaster's biological age of seventy-five, and "scientific age" of forty-five, this paper discusses the related features of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS), and demonstrates in the latter how a much more realistic and fair h-index can be computed for F. W. Lancaster than the one produced automatically. Browsing and searching the cited reference index of the 1945-2007 edition of WoS, which in my estimate has over a hundred million "orphan references" that have no counterpart master records to be attached to, and "stray references" that cite papers which do have master records but cannot be identified by the matching algorithm because of errors of omission and commission in the references of the citing works, can bring up hundreds of additional cited references given to works of an accomplished author but are ignored in the automatic process of calculating the h-index. The partially manual process doubled the h-index value for F. W. Lancaster from 13 to 26, which is a much more realistic value for an information scientist and professor of his stature.
  20. Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (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 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03699987 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15938555 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045514934 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    6.11.2005 19:02:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 36
  • d 6

Types

  • a 42
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes