Search (200 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000) 0.06 
    0.06125952 = product of:
  0.20419839 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4382, 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=4382)
    0.15781024 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15781024 = score(doc=4382,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.94869053 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
    0.040105563 = product of:
      0.080211125 = sum of:
        0.080211125 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080211125 = score(doc=4382,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.6217879 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.123-138
  2. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.04 
    0.039729945 = product of:
  0.13243315 = sum of:
    0.016622158 = weight(_text_:information in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016622158 = score(doc=201,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.103311054 = weight(_text_:ranking in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103311054 = score(doc=201,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.62106377 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.012499932 = product of:
      0.024999864 = sum of:
        0.024999864 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024999864 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = 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)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1263-1274
  3. So, C.Y.K.: Citation ranking versus expert judgement in evaluating communication scholars : effects of research specialty size and individual prominence (1998) 0.03 
    0.034313615 = product of:
  0.17156807 = sum of:
    0.13774808 = weight(_text_:ranking in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13774808 = score(doc=327,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.828085 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
    0.03381998 = product of:
      0.06763996 = sum of:
        0.06763996 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06763996 = score(doc=327,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.5243376 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Numerous attempts have been made to validate the use of citations as an evaluation method by comparing it with peer review. Unlike past studies using journals, research articles or universities as the subject matter, the present study extends the comparison to the ranking of individual scholars. Results show that citation ranking and expert judgement of communication scholars are highly correlated. The citation methods and the expert judgement method are found to work better in smaller research areas and yield more valid evaluation results for more prominent scholars
  4. Tsay, M.-Y.: From Science Citation Index to Journal Citation Reports, amd criteria for journals evaluation (1997) 0.03 
    0.031952985 = product of:
  0.10650994 = sum of:
    0.0073296824 = weight(_text_:information in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0073296824 = score(doc=657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 657, 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=657)
    0.069587775 = weight(_text_:ranking in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069587775 = score(doc=657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 657, 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=657)
    0.029592482 = product of:
      0.059184965 = sum of:
        0.059184965 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059184965 = score(doc=657,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.4587954 = fieldWeight in 657, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    Investigates the characteristics of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) through the study of the Science Citation Index (SCI). Other criteria for evaluating a journal are also discussed. The compilation process of SCI data, and the characteristics, applications and limitations of SCI are studied. A detailed description of JCR is provided including: journal ranking listing, citing journal listing, cited journal listing, subject category listing, source data, impact factor, immediacy index, cited half-life and citing half-life. The applications and limitations of JCR are also explored. In addition to the criteria listed in JCR, the size, circulation and influence of journals are also considered significant criteria fir evaluation purposes
    Source
    Journal of information; communication; and library science. 4(1997) no.2, S.27-41
  5. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.03 
    0.026582826 = product of:
  0.06645706 = sum of:
    0.0059232777 = weight(_text_:information in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059232777 = score(doc=5171,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.012436057 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012436057 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.03976444 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03976444 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23904754 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.008333288 = product of:
      0.016666576 = sum of:
        0.016666576 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016666576 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(4/10)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
  6. Alvarez, P.; Pulgarin, A.: ¬The Rasch model : measuring the impact of scientific journals: analytical chemistry (1996) 0.02 
    0.024863478 = product of:
  0.124317385 = sum of:
    0.011846555 = weight(_text_:information in 8505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011846555 = score(doc=8505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 8505, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8505)
    0.11247083 = weight(_text_:ranking in 8505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11247083 = score(doc=8505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.67612857 = fieldWeight in 8505, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8505)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Focuses on a way to determine a ranking of science journals according to the number of citations-to and items-published data used by Science Citation Insitute of Citation Reports of the Institute for Science Information to determine journal ranking by impact factor. Applies latent traits theory to bibliometrics
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 47(1996) no.6, S.458-467
  7. Sidiropoulos, A.; Manolopoulos, Y.: ¬A new perspective to automatically rank scientific conferences using digital libraries (2005) 0.02 
    0.022439195 = product of:
  0.11219597 = sum of:
    0.008884916 = weight(_text_:information in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008884916 = score(doc=1011,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1011, 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=1011)
    0.103311054 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103311054 = score(doc=1011,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.62106377 = fieldWeight in 1011, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1011)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Citation analysis is performed in order to evaluate authors and scientific collections, such as journals and conference proceedings. Currently, two major systems exist that perform citation analysis: Science Citation Index (SCI) by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and CiteSeer by the NEC Research Institute. The SCI, mostly a manual system up until recently, is based on the notion of the ISI Impact Factor, which has been used extensively for citation analysis purposes. On the other hand the CiteSeer system is an automatically built digital library using agents technology, also based on the notion of ISI Impact Factor. In this paper, we investigate new alternative notions besides the ISI impact factor, in order to provide a novel approach aiming at ranking scientific collections. Furthermore, we present a web-based system that has been built by extracting data from the Databases and Logic Programming (DBLP) website of the University of Trier. Our system, by using the new citation metrics, emerges as a useful tool for ranking scientific collections. In this respect, some first remarks are presented, e.g. on ranking conferences related to databases.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 41(2005) no.2, S.289-312
  8. Garfield, E.: From citation indexes to informetrics : is the tail now wagging the dog? (1998) 0.02 
    0.018620536 = product of:
  0.06206845 = sum of:
    0.010365736 = weight(_text_:information in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010365736 = score(doc=2809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
    0.03077767 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03077767 = score(doc=2809,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
    0.020925045 = product of:
      0.04185009 = sum of:
        0.04185009 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04185009 = score(doc=2809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.32441732 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing
  9. Aguillo, I.F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L.; Prieto, J.A.: Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators (2006) 0.02 
    0.018127142 = product of:
  0.0906357 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5898, 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=5898)
    0.08435312 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08435312 = score(doc=5898,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.5070964 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    To test feasibility of cybermetric indicators for describing and ranking university activities as shown in their Web sites, a large set of 9,330 institutions worldwide was compiled and analyzed. Using search engines' advanced features, size (number of pages), visibility (number of external inlinks), and number of rich files (pdf, ps, doc, ppt, and As formats) were obtained for each of the institutional domains of the universities. We found a statistically significant correlation between a Web ranking built on a combination of Webometric data and other university rankings based on bibliometric and other indicators. Results show that cybermetric measures could be useful for reflecting the contribution of technologically oriented institutions, increasing the visibility of developing countries, and improving the rankings based on Science Citation Index (SCI) data with known biases.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1296-1302
  10. Tho, Q.T.; Hui, S.C.; Fong, A.C.M.: ¬A citation-based document retrieval system for finding research expertise (2007) 0.02 
    0.01596046 = product of:
  0.05320153 = sum of:
    0.008884916 = weight(_text_:information in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008884916 = score(doc=956,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 956, 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=956)
    0.026380861 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026380861 = score(doc=956,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
    0.017935753 = product of:
      0.035871506 = sum of:
        0.035871506 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035871506 = score(doc=956,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.278072 = fieldWeight in 956, 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=956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    Abstract
    Current citation-based document retrieval systems generally offer only limited search facilities, such as author search. In order to facilitate more advanced search functions, we have developed a significantly improved system that employs two novel techniques: Context-based Cluster Analysis (CCA) and Context-based Ontology Generation frAmework (COGA). CCA aims to extract relevant information from clusters originally obtained from disparate clustering methods by building relationships between them. The built relationships are then represented as formal context using the Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) technique. COGA aims to generate ontology from clusters relationship built by CCA. By combining these two techniques, we are able to perform ontology learning from a citation database using clustering results. We have implemented the improved system and have demonstrated its use for finding research domain expertise. We have also conducted performance evaluation on the system and the results are encouraging.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 43(2007) no.1, S.248-264
  11. Page, L.; Brin, S.; Motwani, R.; Winograd, T.: ¬The PageRank citation ranking : Bringing order to the Web (1999) 0.01 
    0.013917555 = product of:
  0.13917555 = sum of:
    0.13917555 = weight(_text_:ranking in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13917555 = score(doc=496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.8366664 = fieldWeight in 496, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=496)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
  12. Sen, B.K.; Pandalai, T.A.; Karanjai, A.: Ranking of scientists - a new approach (1998) 0.01 
    0.013774808 = product of:
  0.13774808 = sum of:
    0.13774808 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13774808 = score(doc=5113,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.828085 = fieldWeight in 5113, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5113)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    A formula for the ranking of scientists based on diachronous citation counts is proposed. The paper generalises the fact that the citation generation potential (CGP) is not the same for all papers, it differs from paper to paper, and also to a certain extent depends on the subject domain of the papers. The method of ranking proposed in no way replaces peer review. It merely acts as an aid for peers to help them arrive at a better judgement.
  13. Ma, N.; Guan, J.; Zhao, Y.: Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis (2008) 0.01 
    0.013430791 = product of:
  0.06715395 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
    0.06087137 = sum of:
      0.035871506 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035871506 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
            0.030753274 = queryNorm
          0.278072 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
      0.024999864 = weight(_text_:22 in 2064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024999864 = score(doc=2064,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.030753274 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2064, 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=2064)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The paper attempts to provide an alternative method for measuring the importance of scientific papers based on the Google's PageRank. The method is a meaningful extension of the common integer counting of citations and is then experimented for bringing PageRank to the citation analysis in a large citation network. It offers a more integrated picture of the publications' influence in a specific field. We firstly calculate the PageRanks of scientific papers. The distributional characteristics and comparison with the traditionally used number of citations are then analyzed in detail. Furthermore, the PageRank is implemented in the evaluation of research influence for several countries in the field of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology during the time period of 2000-2005. Finally, some advantages of bringing PageRank to the citation analysis are concluded.
    Date
    31. 7.2008 14:22:05
    Source
    Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.2, S.800-810
  14. Mendez, A.: Some considerations on the retrieval of literature based on citations (1978) 0.01 
    0.013299557 = product of:
  0.06649779 = sum of:
    0.01675356 = weight(_text_:information in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01675356 = score(doc=778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
    0.04974423 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04974423 = score(doc=778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=778)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Source
    Information scientist. 12(1978), S.67-71
  15. Haridasan, S.; Kulshrestha, V.K.: Citation analysis of scholarly communication in the journal Knowledge Organization (2007) 0.01 
    0.012697984 = product of:
  0.06348992 = sum of:
    0.0072545046 = weight(_text_:information in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072545046 = score(doc=863,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
    0.056235414 = weight(_text_:ranking in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056235414 = score(doc=863,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.33806428 = fieldWeight in 863, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=863)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Citation analysis is one of the popular methods employed for identification of core documents and complex relationship between citing and cited documents for a particular scholarly community in a geographical proximity. The present citation study is to understand the information needs, use pattern and use behaviour of library and information science researchers particularly engaged in the field of knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - The data relating to all the references appended to the articles during the period under study were collected and tabulated. Findings - Citation analysis of the journal for the period under study reveals that the average number of citations is around 21 per article. The major source of information is books and documents published during the later half of the century (1982-91). Authors from the USA, UK and Germany are the major contributors to the journal. India is ranked seventh in terms of contributions. Research limitations/implications - The study undertaken is limited to nine years, i.e. 1993-2001. The model citation index of the journal is analyzed using the first seven core authors. Practical implications - Ranking of periodicals helps to identify the core periodicals cited in the journal Knowledge Organization. Ranking of authors is done to know the eminent personalities in the subject, whose work is used by the authors to refine their ideas on the subject or topic. Originality/value - Model Citation Index for the first seven most cited authors was worked out and it reveals the historical relationship of cited and citing documents. This model citation index can be used to identify, the most cited authors as researchers currently working on special problems, to determine whether a paper has been cited, whether there has been a review of a subject, whether a concept has been applied, a theory confirmed or a method improved.
  16. White, H.D.: Citation analysis : history (2009) 0.01 
    0.0126498 = product of:
  0.042166 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3763, 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=3763)
    0.02198405 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02198405 = score(doc=3763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
    0.01494646 = product of:
      0.02989292 = sum of:
        0.02989292 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02989292 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12900078 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = queryNorm
            0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 3763, 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=3763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.3 = coord(3/10)
    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.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  17. Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004) 0.01 
    0.010988208 = product of:
  0.05494104 = sum of:
    0.005235487 = weight(_text_:information in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005235487 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2266, 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=2266)
    0.049705554 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049705554 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16634533 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 2266, 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=2266)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.513-529
  18. MacCain, K.W.: Descriptor and citation retrieval in the medical behavioral sciences literature : retrieval overlaps and novelty distribution (1989) 0.01 
    0.010395116 = product of:
  0.051975578 = sum of:
    0.0062825847 = weight(_text_:information in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062825847 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2290, 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=2290)
    0.04569299 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04569299 = score(doc=2290,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.49118498 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Search results for nine topics in the medical behavioral sciences are reanalyzed to compare the overall perfor-mance of descriptor and citation search strategies in identifying relevant and novel documents. Overlap per- centages between an aggregate "descriptor-based" database (MEDLINE, EXERPTA MEDICA, PSYCINFO) and an aggregate "citation-based" database (SCISEARCH, SOCIAL SCISEARCH) ranged from 1% to 26%, with a median overlap of 8% relevant retrievals found using both search strategies. For seven topics in which both descriptor and citation strategies produced reasonably substantial retrievals, two patterns of search performance and novelty distribution were observed: (1) where descriptor and citation retrieval showed little overlap, novelty retrieval percentages differed by 17-23% between the two strategies; (2) topics with a relatively high percentage retrieval overlap shoed little difference (1-4%) in descriptor and citation novelty retrieval percentages. These results reflect the varying partial congruence of two literature networks and represent two different types of subject relevance
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 40(1989), S.110-114
  19. Yoon, L.L.: ¬The performance of cited references as an approach to information retrieval (1994) 0.01 
    0.010078036 = product of:
  0.05039018 = sum of:
    0.012695382 = weight(_text_:information in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012695382 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
    0.037694797 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037694797 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.093026035 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    Explores the relationship between the number of cited references used in a citation search and retrieval effectiveness. Focuses on analysing in terms of information retrieval effectiveness, the overlap among posting sets retrieved by various combinations of cited references. Findings from three case studies show the more cited references used for a citation search, the better the performance, in terms of retrieving more relevant documents, up to a point of diminishing returns. The overall level of overlap among relevant documents sets was found to be low. If only some of the cited references among many candidates are used for a citation search, a significant proportion of relevant documents may be missed. The characteristics of cited references showed that some variables are good indicators to predict relevance to a given question
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.5, S.287-299
  20. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01 
    0.010017343 = product of:
  0.050086714 = sum of:
    0.01675356 = weight(_text_:information in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01675356 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05398669 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030753274 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.033333153 = product of:
      0.066666305 = sum of:
        0.066666305 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066666305 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.107692726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030753274 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 186
  • d 12
  • chi 2
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 193
  • el 7
  • m 5
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications