-
Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013)
0.22
0.22029212 = product of:
0.5874457 = sum of:
0.19581522 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19581522 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.19581522 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19581522 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.19581522 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19581522 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.26131085 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Content
- Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.01
0.00978818 = product of:
0.07830544 = sum of:
0.07830544 = product of:
0.11745816 = sum of:
0.058994424 = weight(_text_:29 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058994424 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.058463734 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058463734 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
-
Egghe, L.: ¬A noninformetric analysis of the relationship between citation age and journal productivity (2001)
0.01
0.0074200584 = product of:
0.029680233 = sum of:
0.021252457 = product of:
0.06375737 = sum of:
0.06375737 = weight(_text_:problem in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06375737 = score(doc=5685,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.48735106 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.008427775 = product of:
0.025283325 = sum of:
0.025283325 = weight(_text_:29 in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025283325 = score(doc=5685,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- A problem, raised by Wallace (JASIS, 37,136-145,1986), on the relation between the journal's median citation age and its number of articles is studied. Leaving open the problem as such, we give a statistical explanation of this relationship, when replacing "median" by "mean" in Wallace's problem. The cloud of points, found by Wallace, is explained in this sense that the points are scattered over the area in first quadrant, limited by a curve of the form y=1 + E/x**2 where E is a constant. This curve is obtained by using the Central Limit Theorem in statistics and, hence, has no intrinsic informetric foundation. The article closes with some reflections on explanations of regularities in informetrics, based on statistical, probabilistic or informetric results, or on a combination thereof
- Date
- 29. 9.2001 13:59:34
-
Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016)
0.01
0.0055932454 = product of:
0.044745963 = sum of:
0.044745963 = product of:
0.06711894 = sum of:
0.033711098 = weight(_text_:29 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033711098 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
0.03340785 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03340785 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Date
- 20. 1.2019 11:22:31
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
-
Schwartz, C.A.: ¬The rise and fall of uncitedness (1997)
0.01
0.0051744715 = product of:
0.020697886 = sum of:
0.012270111 = product of:
0.03681033 = sum of:
0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 7658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03681033 = score(doc=7658,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 7658, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7658)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.008427775 = product of:
0.025283325 = sum of:
0.025283325 = weight(_text_:29 in 7658) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025283325 = score(doc=7658,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 7658, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7658)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Large scale uncitedness refers to the significant proportion of articles that do not receive a single citation within 5 years of publication. Notes the brief and troubled history of this area of inquiry, which was prone to miscalculation, misinterpretation, and politicization. Reassesses large scale uncitedness as both a general phenomenon in the scholarly communication system (with data for the physical sciences, social sciences and humanities) and a case study of library and information science, where its rate was reported to be 72%. The study was in 4 parts: examination of the problem of disaggregation in the study of uncitedness; review of the reaction of the popular press and scholars to uncitedness; a case study of uncitedness in C&RL; and a brief summary with suggestions for further research. Data disaggregation was found to be essential in interpreting citation data from tools such as Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index; which do not differentiate between articles and marginal materials (book reviews, letters, obituaries). Stresses the dangers of conclusions from uncitedness data
- Source
- College and research libraries. 58(1997) no.1, S.19-29
-
Shi, D.; Rousseau, R.; Yang, L.; Li, J.: ¬A journal's impact factor is influenced by changes in publication delays of citing journals (2017)
0.01
0.0051744715 = product of:
0.020697886 = sum of:
0.012270111 = product of:
0.03681033 = sum of:
0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03681033 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.008427775 = product of:
0.025283325 = sum of:
0.025283325 = weight(_text_:29 in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025283325 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- In this article we describe another problem with journal impact factors by showing that one journal's impact factor is dependent on other journals' publication delays. The proposed theoretical model predicts a monotonically decreasing function of the impact factor as a function of publication delay, on condition that the citation curve of the journal is monotone increasing during the publication window used in the calculation of the journal impact factor; otherwise, this function has a reversed U shape. Our findings based on simulations are verified by examining three journals in the information sciences: the Journal of Informetrics, Scientometrics, and the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
- Date
- 16.11.2017 13:29:52
-
Rötzer, F.: Bindestriche in Titeln von Artikeln schaden der wissenschaftlichen Reputation (2019)
0.01
0.0051744715 = product of:
0.020697886 = sum of:
0.012270111 = product of:
0.03681033 = sum of:
0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03681033 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.008427775 = product of:
0.025283325 = sum of:
0.025283325 = weight(_text_:29 in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025283325 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Content
- "Aber warum werden Titel mit Bindestrichen weniger häufig zitiert? Die Wissenschaftler vermuten, dass Autoren, wenn sie einen Artikel zitieren, möglicherweise übersehen, Bindestriche anzugeben. Dann kann in den Datenbanken keine Verlinkung mit dem Artikel mit Bindestrichen im Titel hergestellt werden, weswegen der Zitationsindex falsch wird. Das Problem scheint sich bei mehreren Bindestrichen zu verstärken, die die Irrtumshäufigkeit der Menschen erhöhen. Dass die Länge der Titel etwas mit der Zitationshäufigkeit zu tun hat, bestreiten die Wissenschaftler. Längere Titel würden einfach mit höherer Wahrscheinlichkeit mehr Bindestriche enthalten - und deswegen weniger häufig wegen der Bindestrichfehler zitiert werden. Und Artikel mit Bindestrichen sollen auch den JIF von Wissenschaftsjournalen senken."
- Date
- 29. 6.2019 17:46:17
-
Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009)
0.01
0.005155518 = product of:
0.020622073 = sum of:
0.012270111 = product of:
0.03681033 = sum of:
0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03681033 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.008351962 = product of:
0.025055885 = sum of:
0.025055885 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025055885 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:05:07
-
D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011)
0.01
0.005155518 = product of:
0.020622073 = sum of:
0.012270111 = product of:
0.03681033 = sum of:
0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03681033 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.008351962 = product of:
0.025055885 = sum of:
0.025055885 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025055885 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- National exercises for the evaluation of research activity by universities are becoming regular practice in ever more countries. These exercises have mainly been conducted through the application of peer-review methods. Bibliometrics has not been able to offer a valid large-scale alternative because of almost overwhelming difficulties in identifying the true author of each publication. We will address this problem by presenting a heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometric datasets for large-scale research assessments. The application proposed concerns the Italian university system, comprising 80 universities and a research staff of over 60,000 scientists. The key advantage of the proposed approach is the ease of implementation. The algorithms are of practical application and have considerably better scalability and expandability properties than state-of-the-art unsupervised approaches. Moreover, the performance in terms of precision and recall, which can be further improved, seems thoroughly adequate for the typical needs of large-scale bibliometric research assessments.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:06:52
-
Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011)
0.01
0.005155518 = product of:
0.020622073 = sum of:
0.012270111 = product of:
0.03681033 = sum of:
0.03681033 = weight(_text_:problem in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03681033 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4192)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.008351962 = product of:
0.025055885 = sum of:
0.025055885 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025055885 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- This is a study of coverage and overlap in second-generation social sciences and humanities journal lists, with attention paid to curation and the judgment of scholarliness. We identify four factors underpinning coverage shortfalls: journal language, country, publisher size, and age. Analyzing these factors turns our attention to the process of assessing a journal as scholarly, which is a necessary foundation for every list of scholarly journals. Although scholarliness should be a quality inherent in the journal, coverage falls short because groups assessing scholarliness have different perspectives on the social sciences and humanities literature. That the four factors shape perspectives on the literature points to a deeper problem of fragmentation within the scholarly community. We propose reducing this fragmentation as the best method to reduce coverage shortfalls.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:21:28
-
Neth, M.: Citation analysis and the Web (1998)
0.00
0.00489409 = product of:
0.03915272 = sum of:
0.03915272 = product of:
0.05872908 = sum of:
0.029497212 = weight(_text_:29 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029497212 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
0.029231867 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029231867 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Date
- 10. 1.1999 16:22:37
- Source
- Art documentation. 17(1998) no.1, S.29-33
-
Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003)
0.00
0.00489409 = product of:
0.03915272 = sum of:
0.03915272 = product of:
0.05872908 = sum of:
0.029497212 = weight(_text_:29 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029497212 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
0.029231867 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029231867 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Date
- 29. 3.2003 19:22:48
-
Stock, W.G.: Publikation und Zitat : Die problematische Basis empirischer Wissenschaftsforschung (2001)
0.00
0.0043120594 = product of:
0.017248238 = sum of:
0.010225092 = product of:
0.030675275 = sum of:
0.030675275 = weight(_text_:problem in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030675275 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.007023146 = product of:
0.021069437 = sum of:
0.021069437 = weight(_text_:29 in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021069437 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Die empirische Wissenschaftsforschung arbeitet bei den Indikatoren wissenschaftlicher Leistung und wissenschaftlicher Wirkung mit Publikations- und Zitationsraten. Die vorliegende Arbeit befaßt sich mit dabei auftretenden methodischen Problemen. Was ist überhaupt eine Publikation? Was heißt Zitation? Zentral ist auch die Zählbasis, d.h. die Einheitenbildung: Was ist 1 Publikation? und: Was ist 1 Zitation? Bei Printpublikationen gibt es eine Reihe von beachtenswerten Faktoren (u.a. Mehrautorenwerke, Gewichtungsfaktoren wie den Impact Factor, Dokumenttypen). Bei elektronischen Publikationen im Internet mit ihrem dynamischen Charakter ist die Einheitenbildung noch weitaus problematischer. Zitationen, verstanden als zitierte Publikationen, werfen alle methodischen Probleme der Publikationseinheiten auf, hinzu kommen weitere, spezifische Probleme. Lösungsmöglichkeiten im syntaktischen Bereich (Relativierung auf Textseiten oder Zeichen) ändern am grundlegenden Problem nur wenig, Lösungsversuche im semantischen Bereich (etwa im Rahmen der semantischen Informationstheorie) sind im Rahmen der Publikations- und Zitationsanalysen nicht durchführbar und verweisen sowohl auf themenanalytische Methoden als auch auf die Wissenschaftstheorie. Mit diesem Working Paper wollen wir vor allem auf offene Probleme hinweisen; "endgültige" Lösungen wird der Leser nicht finden, wohl aber Lösungsvorschläge, die meist durchaus noch diskussionswürdig sind. In der Informationswissenschaft wie in der Wissenschaftsforschung sind wir bisher viel zu sicher davon ausgegangen, daß wir wissen, was Publikationen und Zitationen sind
- Series
- Kölner Arbeitspapiere zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft; Bd.29
-
Egghe, L.: Untangling Herdan's law and Heaps' law : mathematical and informetric arguments (2007)
0.00
0.0043120594 = product of:
0.017248238 = sum of:
0.010225092 = product of:
0.030675275 = sum of:
0.030675275 = weight(_text_:problem in 271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030675275 = score(doc=271,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 271, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=271)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.007023146 = product of:
0.021069437 = sum of:
0.021069437 = weight(_text_:29 in 271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021069437 = score(doc=271,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 271, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=271)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Herdan's law in linguistics and Heaps' law in information retrieval are different formulations of the same phenomenon. Stated briefly and in linguistic terms they state that vocabularies' sizes are concave increasing power laws of texts' sizes. This study investigates these laws from a purely mathematical and informetric point of view. A general informetric argument shows that the problem of proving these laws is, in fact, ill-posed. Using the more general terminology of sources and items, the author shows by presenting exact formulas from Lotkaian informetrics that the total number T of sources is not only a function of the total number A of items, but is also a function of several parameters (e.g., the parameters occurring in Lotka's law). Consequently, it is shown that a fixed T(or A) value can lead to different possible A (respectively, T) values. Limiting the T(A)-variability to increasing samples (e.g., in a text as done in linguistics) the author then shows, in a purely mathematical way, that for large sample sizes T~ A**phi, where phi is a constant, phi < 1 but close to 1, hence roughly, Heaps' or Herdan's law can be proved without using any linguistic or informetric argument. The author also shows that for smaller samples, a is not a constant but essentially decreases as confirmed by practical examples. Finally, an exact informetric argument on random sampling in the items shows that, in most cases, T= T(A) is a concavely increasing function, in accordance with practical examples.
- Date
- 29. 4.2007 19:51:08
-
Haycock, L.A.: Citation analysis of education dissertations for collection development (2004)
0.00
0.0041949344 = product of:
0.033559475 = sum of:
0.033559475 = product of:
0.05033921 = sum of:
0.025283325 = weight(_text_:29 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025283325 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 135, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=135)
0.025055885 = weight(_text_:22 in 135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025055885 = score(doc=135,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 135, 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=135)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
17.12.2006 19:44:29
-
Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014)
0.00
0.0041949344 = product of:
0.033559475 = sum of:
0.033559475 = product of:
0.05033921 = sum of:
0.025283325 = weight(_text_:29 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025283325 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.025055885 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025055885 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:11:29
-
Mulkay, M.J.; Gilbert, G.N.; Woolgar, S.: Problem areas and research networks in science (1975)
0.00
0.0040900367 = product of:
0.032720294 = sum of:
0.032720294 = product of:
0.09816088 = sum of:
0.09816088 = weight(_text_:problem in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09816088 = score(doc=5771,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.750326 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
-
Thelwall, M.; Thelwall, S.: ¬A thematic analysis of highly retweeted early COVID-19 tweets : consensus, information, dissent and lockdown life (2020)
0.00
0.0034957787 = product of:
0.02796623 = sum of:
0.02796623 = product of:
0.041949343 = sum of:
0.021069437 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021069437 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.108422816 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=178)
0.020879906 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020879906 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Abstract
- Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017)
0.00
0.003437012 = product of:
0.013748048 = sum of:
0.008180073 = product of:
0.02454022 = sum of:
0.02454022 = weight(_text_:problem in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02454022 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13082431 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.005567975 = product of:
0.016703924 = sum of:
0.016703924 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016703924 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.00
0.0027839874 = product of:
0.0222719 = sum of:
0.0222719 = product of:
0.0668157 = sum of:
0.0668157 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0668157 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10793405 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.030822188 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
