Search (84 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × author_ss:"Leydesdorff, L."
  1. Leydesdorff, L.; Shin, J.C.: How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts : fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines (2011) 0.02 
    0.015383491 = product of:
  0.076917455 = sum of:
    0.0073296824 = weight(_text_:information in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073296824 = score(doc=4466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
    0.069587775 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069587775 = score(doc=4466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multidisciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different (sets of) journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1146-1155
  2. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016) 0.01 
    0.014746503 = product of:
  0.049155008 = sum of:
    0.0125651695 = weight(_text_:information in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0125651695 = score(doc=2779,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
    0.018654086 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018654086 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
    0.017935753 = product of:
      0.035871506 = sum of:
        0.035871506 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035871506 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.278072 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
  3. Leydesdorff, L.: How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? (2009) 0.01 
    0.01318585 = product of:
  0.06592925 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=2929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
    0.059646662 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059646662 = score(doc=2929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.35857132 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The launching of Scopus and Google Scholar, and methodological developments in social-network analysis have made many more indicators for evaluating journals available than the traditional impact factor, cited half-life, and immediacy index of the ISI. In this study, these new indicators are compared with one another and with the older ones. Do the various indicators measure new dimensions of the citation networks, or are they highly correlated among themselves? Are they robust and relatively stable over time? Two main dimensions are distinguished - size and impact - which together shape influence. The h-index combines the two dimensions and can also be considered as an indicator of reach (like Indegree). PageRank is mainly an indicator of size, but has important interactions with centrality measures. The Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR) indicator provides an alternative to the journal impact factor, but the computation is less easy.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.7, S.1327-1336
  4. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.01 
    0.012035306 = product of:
  0.06017653 = sum of:
    0.010470974 = weight(_text_:information in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010470974 = score(doc=3231,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.049705554 = weight(_text_:ranking in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049705554 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Moya-Anegón, F. de; Nooy, W. de: Aggregated journal-journal citation relations in scopus and web of science matched and compared in terms of networks, maps, and interactive overlays (2016) 0.01 
    0.010988208 = product of:
  0.05494104 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
    0.049705554 = weight(_text_:ranking in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049705554 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    We compare the network of aggregated journal-journal citation relations provided by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 of the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) with similar data based on Scopus 2012. First, global and overlay maps were developed for the 2 sets separately. Using fuzzy-string matching and ISSN numbers, we were able to match 10,524 journal names between the 2 sets: 96.4% of the 10,936 journals contained in JCR, or 51.2% of the 20,554 journals covered by Scopus. Network analysis was pursued on the set of journals shared between the 2 databases and the 2 sets of unique journals. Citations among the shared journals are more comprehensively covered in JCR than in Scopus, so the network in JCR is denser and more connected than in Scopus. The ranking of shared journals in terms of indegree (i.e., numbers of citing journals) or total citations is similar in both databases overall (Spearman rank correlation ??>?0.97), but some individual journals rank very differently. Journals that are unique to Scopus seem to be less important-they are citing shared journals rather than being cited by them-but the humanities are covered better in Scopus than in JCR.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2194-2211
  6. Leydesdorff, L.: Accounting for the uncertainty in the evaluation of percentile ranks (2012) 0.01 
    0.009687335 = product of:
  0.048436675 = sum of:
    0.0125651695 = weight(_text_:information in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0125651695 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
    0.035871506 = product of:
      0.07174301 = sum of:
        0.07174301 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 447) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07174301 = score(doc=447,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.556144 = fieldWeight in 447, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=447)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2349-2350
  7. Leydesdorff, L.: Why words and co-word cannot map the development of the science (1997) 0.00 
    0.0049873344 = product of:
  0.02493667 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
    0.018654086 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018654086 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Analyses and compares in term of co-occurrences and co-absenses of words in a restricted set of full-text articles from a sub-specialty of biochemistry. By using the distribution of words over the section, a clear distinction among 'theoretical' 'observation', and 'methodological' terminology can be made in individual articles. However, at the level of the set this structure is no longer retrieval: Words change both in terms of frequencies of relations with other words, and in terms of positional meaning from 1 text to another. The fluidity of networks in which nodes and links may chenge positions is ecpected to destabilise representations of developments of the sciences on the basis of co-occurrences and co-absenses of words. Discusses the consequences for the lexicographic approach to generating artificial intelligence from scientific texts
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.5, S.418-427
  8. Leydesdorff, L.; Salah, A.A.A.: Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index : the journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "digital humanities" as a topic (2010) 0.00 
    0.0048436676 = product of:
  0.024218338 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=3436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
    0.017935753 = product of:
      0.035871506 = sum of:
        0.035871506 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035871506 = score(doc=3436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.278072 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.787-801
  9. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Opthof, T.: Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time : principles for comparing sets of documents (2011) 0.00 
    0.0048436676 = product of:
  0.024218338 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=4485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
    0.017935753 = product of:
      0.035871506 = sum of:
        0.035871506 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035871506 = score(doc=4485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.278072 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    We submit newly developed citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks. Citation distributions are-as a rule-highly skewed and should not be arithmetically averaged. With percentile ranks, the citation score of each paper is rated in terms of its percentile in the citation distribution. The percentile ranks approach allows for the formulation of a more abstract indicator scheme that can be used to organize and/or schematize different impact indicators according to three degrees of freedom: the selection of the reference sets, the evaluation criteria, and the choice of whether or not to define the publication sets as independent. Bibliometric data of seven principal investigators (PIs) of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam are used as an exemplary dataset. We demonstrate that the proposed family indicators [R(6), R(100), R(6, k), R(100, k)] are an improvement on averages-based indicators because one can account for the shape of the distributions of citations over papers.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1370-1381
  10. Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018) 0.00 
    0.0044247033 = product of:
  0.022123516 = sum of:
    0.011706905 = weight(_text_:information in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706905 = score(doc=4463,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
    0.01041661 = product of:
      0.02083322 = sum of:
        0.02083322 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02083322 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    This article considers the relationships among meaning generation, selection, and the dynamics of discourse from a variety of perspectives ranging from information theory and biology to sociology. Following Husserl's idea of a horizon of meanings in intersubjective communication, we propose a way in which, using Shannon's equations, the generation and selection of meanings from a horizon of possibilities can be considered probabilistically. The information-theoretical dynamics we articulate considers a process of meaning generation within cultural evolution: information is imbued with meaning, and through this process, the number of options for the selection of meaning in discourse proliferates. The redundancy of possible meanings contributes to a codification of expectations within the discourse. Unlike hardwired DNA, the codes of nonbiological systems can coevolve with the variations. Spanning horizons of meaning, the codes structure the communications as selection environments that shape discourses. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication that enables us to translate among differently coded communications. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution by adding options, that is, by increasing redundancy. A calculus of redundancy is presented as an indicator whereby these dynamics of discourse and meaning may be explored empirically.
    Date
    29. 9.2018 11:22:09
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.10, S.1181-1192
    Theme
    Information
  11. Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009) 0.00 
    0.00427697 = product of:
  0.021384848 = sum of:
    0.008884916 = weight(_text_:information in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008884916 = score(doc=2761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
    0.012499932 = product of:
      0.024999864 = sum of:
        0.024999864 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024999864 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:07:20
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.778-788
  12. Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.; Chen, C.: Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journal-journal citations (2013) 0.00 
    0.0041561117 = product of:
  0.020780558 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
    0.015545071 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015545071 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Using the option Analyze Results with the Web of Science, one can directly generate overlays onto global journal maps of science. The maps are based on the 10,000+ journals contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices (2011). The disciplinary diversity of the retrieval is measured in terms of Rao-Stirling's "quadratic entropy" (Izsák & Papp, 1995). Since this indicator of interdisciplinarity is normalized between 0 and 1, interdisciplinarity can be compared among document sets and across years, cited or citing. The colors used for the overlays are based on Blondel, Guillaume, Lambiotte, and Lefebvre's (2008) community-finding algorithms operating on the relations among journals included in the JCR. The results can be exported from VOSViewer with different options such as proportional labels, heat maps, or cluster density maps. The maps can also be web-started or animated (e.g., using PowerPoint). The "citing" dimension of the aggregated journal-journal citation matrix was found to provide a more comprehensive description than the matrix based on the cited archive. The relations between local and global maps and their different functions in studying the sciences in terms of journal literatures are further discussed: Local and global maps are based on different assumptions and can be expected to serve different purposes for the explanation.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.12, S.2573-2586
  13. Rafols, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals : perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects (2009) 0.00 
    0.0040363893 = product of:
  0.020181946 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
    0.01494646 = product of:
      0.02989292 = sum of:
        0.02989292 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02989292 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The aggregated journal-journal citation matrix - based on the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science Citation Index - can be decomposed by indexers or algorithmically. In this study, we test the results of two recently available algorithms for the decomposition of large matrices against two content-based classifications of journals: the ISI Subject Categories and the field/subfield classification of Glänzel and Schubert (2003). The content-based schemes allow for the attribution of more than a single category to a journal, whereas the algorithms maximize the ratio of within-category citations over between-category citations in the aggregated category-category citation matrix. By adding categories, indexers generate between-category citations, which may enrich the database, for example, in the case of inter-disciplinary developments. Algorithmic decompositions, on the other hand, are more heavily skewed towards a relatively small number of categories, while this is deliberately counter-acted upon in the case of content-based classifications. Because of the indexer effects, science policy studies and the sociology of science should be careful when using content-based classifications, which are made for bibliographic disclosure, and not for the purpose of analyzing latent structures in scientific communications. Despite the large differences among them, the four classification schemes enable us to generate surprisingly similar maps of science at the global level. Erroneous classifications are cancelled as noise at the aggregate level, but may disturb the evaluation locally.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.9, S.1823-1835
  14. Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction and globalization of the knowledge base in inter-human communication systems (2003) 0.00 
    0.0037565033 = product of:
  0.018782517 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1621)
    0.012499932 = product of:
      0.024999864 = sum of:
        0.024999864 = weight(_text_:22 in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024999864 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1621, 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=1621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The relationship between the "knowledge base" and the "globalization" of communication systems is discussed from the perspective of communication theory. I argue that inter-human communication takes place at two levels. At the first level information is exchanged and provided with meaning and at the second level meaning can reflexively be communicated. Human language can be considered as the evolutionary achievement which enables us to use these two channels of communication simultaneously. Providing meaning with hindsight is a recursive operation: a meaning that makes a difference can be considered as knowledge. If the production of knowledge is socially organized, the perspective of hindsight can further be codified. This adds globalization to the historically stabilized patterns of communications. Globalization can be expected to transform the communications in an evolutionary mode. However, the self-organization of a knowledge-based society remains an expectation with the status of a hypothesis.
    Date
    22. 5.2003 19:48:04
  15. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.00 
    0.0037565033 = product of:
  0.018782517 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.012499932 = product of:
      0.024999864 = sum of:
        0.024999864 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024999864 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
  16. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.00 
    0.0035641415 = product of:
  0.017820707 = sum of:
    0.007404097 = weight(_text_:information in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007404097 = score(doc=4186,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.01041661 = product of:
      0.02083322 = sum of:
        0.02083322 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02083322 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229
  17. Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction of interdisciplinarity : the development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal Climatic Change, 1977-2013 (2016) 0.00 
    0.0031304196 = product of:
  0.015652098 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
    0.01041661 = product of:
      0.02083322 = sum of:
        0.02083322 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02083322 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Date
    24. 8.2016 17:53:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2181-2193
  18. Leydesdorff, L.; Ivanova, I.A.: Mutual redundancies in interhuman communication systems : steps toward a calculus of processing meaning (2014) 0.00 
    0.0014808194 = product of:
  0.014808194 = sum of:
    0.014808194 = weight(_text_:information in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014808194 = score(doc=1211,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    The study of interhuman communication requires a more complex framework than Claude E. Shannon's (1948) mathematical theory of communication because "information" is defined in the latter case as meaningless uncertainty. Assuming that meaning cannot be communicated, we extend Shannon's theory by defining mutual redundancy as a positional counterpart of the relational communication of information. Mutual redundancy indicates the surplus of meanings that can be provided to the exchanges in reflexive communications. The information is redundant because it is based on "pure sets" (i.e., without subtraction of mutual information in the overlaps). We show that in the three-dimensional case (e.g., of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations), mutual redundancy is equal to mutual information (Rxyz = Txyz); but when the dimensionality is even, the sign is different. We generalize to the measurement in N dimensions and proceed to the interpretation. Using Niklas Luhmann's (1984-1995) social systems theory and/or Anthony Giddens's (1979, 1984) structuration theory, mutual redundancy can be provided with an interpretation in the sociological case: Different meaning-processing structures code and decode with other algorithms. A surplus of ("absent") options can then be generated that add to the redundancy. Luhmann's "functional (sub)systems" of expectations or Giddens's "rule-resource sets" are positioned mutually, but coupled operationally in events or "instantiated" in actions. Shannon-type information is generated by the mediation, but the "structures" are (re-)positioned toward one another as sets of (potentially counterfactual) expectations. The structural differences among the coding and decoding algorithms provide a source of additional options in reflexive and anticipatory communications.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.386-399
    Theme
    Information
  19. Leydesdorff, L.: Similarity measures, author cocitation Analysis, and information theory (2005) 0.00 
    0.0014659365 = product of:
  0.014659365 = sum of:
    0.014659365 = weight(_text_:information in 3471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014659365 = score(doc=3471,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3471, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3471)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    The use of Pearson's correlation coefficient in Author Cocitation Analysis was compared with Salton's cosine measure in a number of recent contributions. Unlike the Pearson correlation, the cosine is insensitive to the number of zeros. However, one has the option of applying a logarithmic transformation in correlation analysis. Information caiculus is based an both the logarithmic transformation and provides a non-parametric statistics. Using this methodology, one can cluster a document set in a precise way and express the differences in terms of bits of information. The algorithm is explained and used an the data set, which was made the subject of this discussion.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.7, S.769-772
  20. Leydesdorff, L.: Should co-occurrence data be normalized : a rejoinder (2007) 0.00 
    0.001256517 = product of:
  0.0125651695 = sum of:
    0.0125651695 = weight(_text_:information in 627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0125651695 = score(doc=627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=627)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.14, S.2411-2413

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 83
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes