Search (54 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.05 
    0.045352414 = product of:
  0.13605724 = sum of:
    0.12590174 = weight(_text_:ranking in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12590174 = score(doc=201,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
    0.0101555 = product of:
      0.030466499 = sum of:
        0.030466499 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030466499 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  2. Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000) 0.03 
    0.032053016 = product of:
  0.19231808 = sum of:
    0.19231808 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19231808 = score(doc=4382,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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
  3. Page, L.; Brin, S.; Motwani, R.; Winograd, T.: ¬The PageRank citation ranking : Bringing order to the Web (1999) 0.03 
    0.028268103 = product of:
  0.16960861 = sum of:
    0.16960861 = weight(_text_:ranking in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16960861 = score(doc=496,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  4. So, C.Y.K.: Citation ranking versus expert judgement in evaluating communication scholars : effects of research specialty size and individual prominence (1998) 0.03 
    0.027978165 = product of:
  0.16786899 = sum of:
    0.16786899 = weight(_text_:ranking in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16786899 = score(doc=327,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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
  5. Sen, B.K.; Pandalai, T.A.; Karanjai, A.: Ranking of scientists - a new approach (1998) 0.03 
    0.027978165 = product of:
  0.16786899 = sum of:
    0.16786899 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16786899 = score(doc=5113,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  6. Alvarez, P.; Pulgarin, A.: ¬The Rasch model : measuring the impact of scientific journals: analytical chemistry (1996) 0.02 
    0.022844076 = product of:
  0.13706446 = sum of:
    0.13706446 = weight(_text_:ranking in 8505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13706446 = score(doc=8505,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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
  7. Sidiropoulos, A.; Manolopoulos, Y.: ¬A new perspective to automatically rank scientific conferences using digital libraries (2005) 0.02 
    0.020983625 = product of:
  0.12590174 = sum of:
    0.12590174 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12590174 = score(doc=1011,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  8. Feitelson, D.G.; Yovel, U.: Predictive ranking of computer scientists using CiteSeer data (2004) 0.02 
    0.019988567 = product of:
  0.1199314 = sum of:
    0.1199314 = weight(_text_:ranking in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1199314 = score(doc=1259,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.5916125 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The increasing availability of digital libraries with cross-citation data on the Internet enables new studies in bibliometrics. The paper focuses on the list of 10.000 top-cited authors in computer science available as part of CiteSeer. Using data from several consecutive lists a model of how authors accrue citations with time is constructed. By comparing the rate at which individual authors accrue citations with the average rate, predictions are made of how their ranking in the list will change in the future.
  9. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.02 
    0.018409979 = product of:
  0.055229932 = sum of:
    0.0484596 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0484596 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
    0.0067703333 = product of:
      0.020311 = sum of:
        0.020311 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020311 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    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
  10. Aguillo, I.F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L.; Prieto, J.A.: Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators (2006) 0.02 
    0.017133057 = product of:
  0.102798335 = sum of:
    0.102798335 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102798335 = score(doc=5898,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  11. Tsay, M.-Y.: From Science Citation Index to Journal Citation Reports, amd criteria for journals evaluation (1997) 0.01 
    0.014134051 = product of:
  0.084804304 = sum of:
    0.084804304 = weight(_text_:ranking in 657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084804304 = score(doc=657,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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
  12. Mayr, P.; Walter, A.-K.: Abdeckung und Aktualität des Suchdienstes Google Scholar (2006) 0.01 
    0.013238294 = product of:
  0.07942976 = sum of:
    0.07942976 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07942976 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21191008 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = queryNorm
        0.37482765 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Der Beitrag widmet sich dem neuen Google-Suchdienst Google Scholar. Die Suchmaschine, die ausschließlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente durchsuchen soll, wird mit ihren wichtigsten Funktionen beschrieben und anschließend einem empirischen Test unterzogen. Die durchgeführte Studie basiert auf drei Zeitschriftenlisten: Zeitschriften von Thomson Scientific, Open AccessZeitschriften des Verzeichnisses DOAJ und in der Fachdatenbank SOLIS ausgewertete sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Die Abdeckung dieser Zeitschriften durch Google Scholar wurde per Abfrage der Zeitschriftentitel überprüft. Die Studie zeigt Defizite in der Abdeckung und Aktualität des Google Scholarlndex. Weiterhin macht die Studie deutlich, wer die wichtigsten Datenlieferanten für den neuen Suchdienst sind und welche wissenschaftlichen Informationsquellen im Index repräsentiert sind. Die Pluspunkte von Google Scholar liegen in seiner Einfachheit, seiner Suchgeschwindigkeit und letztendlich seiner Kostenfreiheit. Die Recherche in Fachdatenbanken kann Google Scholar trotz sichtbarer Potenziale (z. B. Zitationsanalyse) aber heute aufgrund mangelnder fachlicher Abdeckung und Transparenz nicht ersetzen.
  13. Haridasan, S.; Kulshrestha, V.K.: Citation analysis of scholarly communication in the journal Knowledge Organization (2007) 0.01 
    0.011422038 = product of:
  0.06853223 = sum of:
    0.06853223 = weight(_text_:ranking in 863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06853223 = score(doc=863,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  14. Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004) 0.01 
    0.010095751 = product of:
  0.0605745 = sum of:
    0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0605745 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  15. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.00 
    0.0045135557 = product of:
  0.027081333 = sum of:
    0.027081333 = product of:
      0.081244 = sum of:
        0.081244 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081244 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  16. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.00 
    0.0045135557 = product of:
  0.027081333 = sum of:
    0.027081333 = product of:
      0.081244 = sum of:
        0.081244 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081244 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  17. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.00 
    0.0039894576 = product of:
  0.023936745 = sum of:
    0.023936745 = product of:
      0.07181023 = sum of:
        0.07181023 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07181023 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  18. Williams, R.M.: ISI search network research front specialities (1983) 0.00 
    0.0039852113 = product of:
  0.023911266 = sum of:
    0.023911266 = product of:
      0.071733795 = sum of:
        0.071733795 = weight(_text_:29 in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071733795 = score(doc=445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 445, 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=445)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Deutscher Dokumentartag 1982, Lübeck-Travemünde, 29.-30.9.1982: Fachinformation im Zeitalter der Informationsindustrie. Bearb.: H. Strohl-Goebel
  19. Remler, A.: Lässt sich wissenschaftliche Leistung messen? : Wer zitiert wird, liegt vorne - in den USA berechnet man Forschungsleistung nach einem Zitat-Index (2000) 0.00 
    0.0039852113 = product of:
  0.023911266 = sum of:
    0.023911266 = product of:
      0.071733795 = sum of:
        0.071733795 = weight(_text_:29 in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071733795 = score(doc=5392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 5392, 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=5392)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    30.10.2000 17:47:29
  20. Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y.: Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities : the flow of ides within and among disciplines (1998) 0.00 
    0.0028465795 = product of:
  0.017079476 = sum of:
    0.017079476 = product of:
      0.051238425 = sum of:
        0.051238425 = weight(_text_:29 in 4063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051238425 = score(doc=4063,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.38865322 = fieldWeight in 4063, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4063)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    29. 3.1996 18:19:32

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 44
  • d 9
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 49
  • el 5
  • m 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications