Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. McCain, K.W.: Mapping authors in intellectual space : a technical overview (1990) 0.01 
    0.0076637254 = product of:
  0.06897353 = sum of:
    0.06897353 = product of:
      0.20692056 = sum of:
        0.20692056 = weight(_text_:1990 in 6903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20692056 = score(doc=6903,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.1642572 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            1.2597351 = fieldWeight in 6903, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6903)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.6, S.433-443
    Year
    1990
  2. Garfield, E.: How ISI selects journals for coverage : quantitative and qualitative considerations (1990) 0.01 
    0.0076637254 = product of:
  0.06897353 = sum of:
    0.06897353 = product of:
      0.20692056 = sum of:
        0.20692056 = weight(_text_:1990 in 1153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20692056 = score(doc=1153,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.1642572 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            1.2597351 = fieldWeight in 1153, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1153)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Source
    Current contents. 1990, no.21, S.5-13
    Year
    1990
  3. Bayer, A.E.; Smart, J.C.; McLaughlin, G.W.: Mapping intellectual structure of a scientific subfield through author cocitations (1990) 0.01 
    0.006705759 = product of:
  0.06035183 = sum of:
    0.06035183 = product of:
      0.18105549 = sum of:
        0.18105549 = weight(_text_:1990 in 338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18105549 = score(doc=338,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.1642572 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            1.1022682 = fieldWeight in 338, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=338)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.6, S.444-452
    Year
    1990
  4. Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.01 
    0.00582981 = product of:
  0.052468292 = sum of:
    0.052468292 = product of:
      0.078702435 = sum of:
        0.049075518 = weight(_text_:1990 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049075518 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1642572 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.2987724 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
        0.029626919 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029626919 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.
    Date
    26.12.2007 19:22:05
  5. Klein, A.: Von der Schneeflocke zur Lawine : Möglichkeiten der Nutzung freier Zitationsdaten in Bibliotheken (2017) 0.00 
    0.004974079 = product of:
  0.04476671 = sum of:
    0.04476671 = product of:
      0.13430013 = sum of:
        0.13430013 = weight(_text_:2017 in 4002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13430013 = score(doc=4002,freq=7.0), product of:
            0.18392459 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.046608 = idf(docFreq=772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.7301913 = fieldWeight in 4002, product of:
              2.6457512 = tf(freq=7.0), with freq of:
                7.0 = termFreq=7.0
              5.046608 = idf(docFreq=772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4002)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Footnote
    Vortrag anlässlich des Bibliothekartages 2017 in Frankfurt.
    Source
    o-bib: Das offene Bibliotheksjournal. 4(2017) Nr.4, S.127-136
    Year
    2017
  6. Gorraiz, J.: "Web of Science" versus "Scopus" oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken (2006) 0.00 
    0.004524728 = product of:
  0.04072255 = sum of:
    0.04072255 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04072255 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14962682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03644519 = queryNorm
        0.27216077 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".
  7. Stock, W.G.: Journal Citation Reports : Ein Impact Factor für Bibliotheken, Verlage und Autoren? (2001) 0.00 
    0.0037706068 = product of:
  0.03393546 = sum of:
    0.03393546 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03393546 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14962682 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03644519 = queryNorm
        0.22680065 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Gibt es objektive Kriterien für die Bestellung und Abbestellung wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften? Wie lange sollte eine Bibliothek Periodikabestände benutzernah aufstellen? Kann ein Verlag -außer via Verkaufszahlen - auf Kriterien des Erfolgs seiner Zeitschriften zurückgreifen? Hat ein Autor eine Entscheidungsgrundlage, welcher Zeitschrift er seinen Artikel anbietet? Ist die Forschungsaktivität eines Instituts oder eines Wissenschaftlers über den Impact derjenigen Zeitschriftentitel zu evaluieren, die die Forschungsergebnisse drucken? Können die 'Journal Citation Reports (JCR) "des "Institute for Scientific Information" bei der Klärung solcher Fragen helfen? Sind die JCR ein nützliches oder gar ein notwendiges Hilfsmittel für Bibliotheken, für Verlage, für Wissenschaftsmanager und für wissenschaftliche Autoren? Die 'Journal Citation Reports" geben im Jahresrhythmus informetrische Kennzahlen wie die Zitationsrate, den Impact Factor, den Immediacy Index, die Halbwertszeit für eine Auswahl wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften an. Zusätzlich berichten sie darüber, weiche Zeitschriften weiche anderen Zeitschriften zitieren bzw. von diesen zitiert werden, so dass "Soziogramme" wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenkommunikation entstehen. Wir wollen am Beispiel des aktuellen Jahrgangs ( 1999) die JCR detailliert beschreiben, die Auswahlkriterien der Zeitschriften beleuchten, die verwendeten informetrischen Kennwerte - vor allem den Impact Factor - kritisch hinterfragen, um danach die Einsatzgebiete bei Bibliotheken, in der Wissenschaftsevaluation, bei Verlagen und bei Autoren zu diskutieren. Das Fazit sei vorweggenommen: Die JCR sind ein nicht umgehbares Hilfsmittel für die fokussierten Anwendungsbereiche. Sie sind mitnichten frei von Problemen. Wir schließen daher mit einigen Verbesserungsvorschlägen
  8. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.00 
    0.0029261154 = product of:
  0.026335038 = sum of:
    0.026335038 = product of:
      0.079005115 = sum of:
        0.079005115 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079005115 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  9. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.00 
    0.0029261154 = product of:
  0.026335038 = sum of:
    0.026335038 = product of:
      0.079005115 = sum of:
        0.079005115 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.079005115 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  10. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.00 
    0.0025863454 = product of:
  0.023277108 = sum of:
    0.023277108 = product of:
      0.06983132 = sum of:
        0.06983132 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06983132 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  11. Aström, F.: Changes in the LIS research front : time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004 (2007) 0.00 
    0.0021420761 = product of:
  0.019278685 = sum of:
    0.019278685 = product of:
      0.057836052 = sum of:
        0.057836052 = weight(_text_:1990 in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057836052 = score(doc=329,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1642572 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.35210666 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Based on articles published in 1990-2004 in 21 library and information science (LIS) journals, a set of cocitation analyses was performed to study changes in research fronts over the last 15 years, where LIS is at now, and to discuss where it is heading. To study research fronts, here defined as current and influential cocited articles, a citations among documents methodology was applied; and to study changes, the analyses were time-sliced into three 5-year periods. The results show a stable structure of two distinct research fields: informetrics and information seeking and retrieval (ISR). However, experimental retrieval research and user oriented research have merged into one ISR field; and IR and informetrics also show signs of coming closer together, sharing research interests and methodologies, making informetrics research more visible in mainstream LIS research. Furthermore, the focus on the Internet, both in ISR research and in informetrics-where webometrics quickly has become a dominating research area-is an important change. The future is discussed in terms of LIS dependency on technology, how integration of research areas as well as technical systems can be expected to continue to characterize LIS research, and how webometrics will continue to develop and find applications.
  12. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.00 
    0.0018288224 = product of:
  0.016459402 = sum of:
    0.016459402 = product of:
      0.0493782 = sum of:
        0.0493782 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0493782 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  13. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.00 
    0.0015518073 = product of:
  0.013966265 = sum of:
    0.013966265 = product of:
      0.041898794 = sum of:
        0.041898794 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041898794 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  14. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.00 
    0.0014630577 = product of:
  0.013167519 = sum of:
    0.013167519 = product of:
      0.039502557 = sum of:
        0.039502557 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039502557 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
  15. Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001) 0.00 
    0.0012801755 = product of:
  0.01152158 = sum of:
    0.01152158 = product of:
      0.034564737 = sum of:
        0.034564737 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034564737 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    16.12.2001 14:01:22
  16. Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006) 0.00 
    0.0012801755 = product of:
  0.01152158 = sum of:
    0.01152158 = product of:
      0.034564737 = sum of:
        0.034564737 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034564737 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:20:01
  17. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.00 
    0.0012801755 = product of:
  0.01152158 = sum of:
    0.01152158 = product of:
      0.034564737 = sum of:
        0.034564737 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034564737 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
  18. Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.00 
    0.0010972933 = product of:
  0.00987564 = sum of:
    0.00987564 = product of:
      0.029626919 = sum of:
        0.029626919 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029626919 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4215)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
  19. Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.00 
    0.0010972933 = product of:
  0.00987564 = sum of:
    0.00987564 = product of:
      0.029626919 = sum of:
        0.029626919 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029626919 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:33:24
  20. wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003) 0.00 
    0.0010972933 = product of:
  0.00987564 = sum of:
    0.00987564 = product of:
      0.029626919 = sum of:
        0.029626919 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029626919 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12762484 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03644519 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1270)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Content
    "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 19
  • d 8

Types

Themes