Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

Howard, D.L.: What the eye sees while predicitng a document's pertinence from its citation (1991) 0.03

0.027550975 = product of:
  0.13775487 = sum of:
    0.13775487 = weight(_text_:inc in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13775487 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2573945 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042509552 = queryNorm
        0.5351897 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0549803 = idf(docFreq=281, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Imprint: Medford : Learned Information Inc.

Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.01

0.009215132 = product of:
  0.04607566 = sum of:
    0.04607566 = product of:
      0.09215132 = sum of:
        0.09215132 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09215132 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 7. 2.2005 14:10:22

Pao, M.L.: Term and citation retrieval : a field study (1993) 0.00

0.0042687347 = product of:
  0.021343673 = sum of:
    0.021343673 = product of:
      0.042687345 = sum of:
        0.042687345 = weight(_text_:management in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042687345 = score(doc=3741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.29792285 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source: Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.95-112

Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996) 0.00
```
0.0034556747 = product of:
  0.017278373 = sum of:
    0.017278373 = product of:
      0.034556746 = sum of:
        0.034556746 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034556746 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
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

Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998) 0.00

0.0034556747 = product of:
  0.017278373 = sum of:
    0.017278373 = product of:
      0.034556746 = sum of:
        0.034556746 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034556746 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14886121 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 22. 5.1999 19:33:24

Moed, H.F.; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Reedijk, J.: ¬A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors (1998) 0.00
```
0.0030184512 = product of:
  0.015092256 = sum of:
    0.015092256 = product of:
      0.030184511 = sum of:
        0.030184511 = weight(_text_:management in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030184511 = score(doc=4719,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14328322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042509552 = queryNorm
            0.21066327 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
Abstract

During the past decades, journal impact data obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) have gained relevance in library management, research management and research evaluation. Hence, both information scientists and bibliometricians share the responsibility towards the users of the JCR to analyse the reliability and validity of its measures thoroughly, to indicate pitfalls and to suggest possible improvements. In this article, ageing patterns are examined in 'formal' use or impact of all scientific journals processed for the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1981-1995. A new classification system of journals in terms of their ageing characteristics is introduced. This system has been applied to as many as 3,098 journals covered by the Science Citation Index. Following an earlier suggestion by Glnzel and Schoepflin, a maturing and a decline phase are distinguished. From an analysis across all subfields it has been concluded that ageing characteristics are primarily specific to the individual journal rather than to the subfield, while the distribution of journals in terms of slowly or rapidly maturing or declining types is specific to the subfield. It is shown that the cited half life (CHL), printed in the JCR, is an inappropriate measure of decline of journal impact. Following earlier work by Line and others, a more adequate parameter of decline is calculated taking into account the size of annual volumes during a range of fifteen years. For 76 per cent of SCI journals the relative difference between this new parameter and the ISI CHL exceeds 5 per cent. The current JCR journal impact factor is proven to be biased towards journals revealing a rapid maturing and decline in impact. Therefore, a longer term impact factor is proposed, as well as a normalised impact statistic, taking into account citation characteristics of the research subfield covered by a journal and the type of documents published in it. When these new measures are combined with the proposed ageing classification system, they provide a significantly improved picture of a journal's impact to that obtained from the JCR.

Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors