Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

Cronin, B.: Tiered citation and measures of document similarity (1994) 0.01

0.00576781 = product of:
  0.04614248 = sum of:
    0.04614248 = weight(_text_:work in 7773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04614248 = score(doc=7773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 7773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7773)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract: The degree of similarity netween pairs of cited and citing documents is frequently small. One factor may be the ways in which authors draw upon and cite the work of others. The idea of tiered, or multilayered, citation is proposed as a means of testing this hypothesis. A tentative citation typology is outlined

Cronin, B.: Library and information science in context (1998) 0.01

0.00576781 = product of:
  0.04614248 = sum of:
    0.04614248 = weight(_text_:work in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04614248 = score(doc=1416,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.32441974 = fieldWeight in 1416, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1416)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source: Library and information work worldwide 1998. Ed.: M.B. Line et al

Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Who dunnit? : Metatags and hyperauthorship (2001) 0.01
```
0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
```
Abstract

Multiple authorship is a topic of growing concern in a number of scientific domains. When, as is increasingly common, scholarly articles and clinical reports have scores or even hundreds of authors-what Cronin (in press) has termed "hyperauthorship" -the precise nature of each individual's contribution is often masked. A notation that describes collaborators' contributions and allows those contributions to be tracked in, and across, texts (and over time) offers a solution. Such a notation should be useful, easy to use, and acceptable to communities of scientists. Drawing on earlier work, we present a proposal for an XML-like "contribution" mark-up, and discuss the potential benefits and possible drawbacks
Cronin, B.; Shaw, D.; LaBarre, K.: ¬A cast of thousands : Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy (2003) 0.01
```
0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 1731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=1731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 1731, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1731)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
```
Abstract

We chronicle the use of acknowledgments in 20th-century scholarship by analyzing and classifying more than 4,500 specimens covering a 100-year period. Our results show that the intensity of acknowledgment varies by discipline, reflecting differences in prevailing sociocognitive structures and work practices. We demonstrate that the acknowledgment has gradually established itself as a constitutive element of academic writing, one that provides a revealing insight into the nature and extent of subauthorship collaboration. Complementary data an rates of coauthorship are also presented to highlight the growing importance of collaboration and the increasing division of labor in contemporary research and scholarship.

Cronin, B.; Shaw, D.; LaBarre, K.: Visible, Less Visible, and Invisible Work : Patterns of Collaboration in 20th Century Chemistry (2004) 0.01

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Cronin, B.: Vernacular and vehicular language (2009) 0.00

0.004593932 = product of:
  0.036751457 = sum of:
    0.036751457 = product of:
      0.07350291 = sum of:
        0.07350291 = weight(_text_:22 in 7192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07350291 = score(doc=7192,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7192, 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=7192)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date: 22. 3.2009 11:44:11

Cronin, B.: Thinking about data (2013) 0.00

0.004593932 = product of:
  0.036751457 = sum of:
    0.036751457 = product of:
      0.07350291 = sum of:
        0.07350291 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07350291 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, 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=4347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date: 22. 3.2013 16:18:36

Snyder, H.; Cronin, B.; Davenport, E.: What's the use of citation? : Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences (1995) 0.00
```
0.004325858 = product of:
  0.034606863 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
```
Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions
Lee, C.J.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Zhang, G.; Cronin, B.: Bias in peer review (2013) 0.00
```
0.004325858 = product of:
  0.034606863 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 525, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=525)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)
```
Abstract

Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications of research on bias in peer review. This review provides a brief description of the function, history, and scope of peer review; articulates and critiques the conception of bias unifying research on bias in peer review; characterizes and examines the empirical, methodological, and normative claims of bias in peer review research; and assesses possible alternatives to the status quo. We close by identifying ways to expand conceptions and studies of bias to contend with the complexity of social interactions among actors involved directly and indirectly in peer review.

Cronin, B.: ¬The writing on the wall (2015) 0.00

0.0039376556 = product of:
  0.031501245 = sum of:
    0.031501245 = product of:
      0.06300249 = sum of:
        0.06300249 = weight(_text_:22 in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06300249 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 7297, 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=7297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date: 26. 4.2015 19:27:22

Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Knowledge management : Semantic drift or conceptual shift? (2000) 0.00

0.00328138 = product of:
  0.02625104 = sum of:
    0.02625104 = product of:
      0.05250208 = sum of:
        0.05250208 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05250208 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, 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=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date: 31. 7.2001 20:22:57

Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years

Themes