Search (141 results, page 1 of 8)

0.070573054 = product of:
  0.28229222 = sum of:
    0.28229222 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28229222 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37671238 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.056681104 = product of:
  0.22672442 = sum of:
    0.22672442 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22672442 = score(doc=1081,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.9497377 = fieldWeight in 1081, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1081)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

IEEE transactions on engineering management. 39(1992) no.1, S.79-84

0.0552816 = product of:
  0.1105632 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.02554155 = product of:
      0.0510831 = sum of:
        0.0510831 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0510831 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.049595967 = product of:
  0.19838387 = sum of:
    0.19838387 = weight(_text_:engineering in 465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19838387 = score(doc=465,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.83102053 = fieldWeight in 465, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=465)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes exploratory research into the application of computerized text anaylsis techniques to all US engineering doctoral dissertation abstracts dated 1981, 1986 and 1991. Experts categorized abstracts by industrial relevance, and identified appropriate non technology specific word indicators within the abstracts. Word frequency and cluster analysis techniques were also explored for their potential utility in identifying technology related word indicators of industrial relevance. Results suggest that text analysis of engineering dissertation abstracts holds potential utility for identifying industrially relevant university based engineering research, when used in conjunction with expert input and feedback

0.049087282 = product of:
  0.19634913 = sum of:
    0.19634913 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19634913 = score(doc=2161,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.82249707 = fieldWeight in 2161, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2161)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This empirical research demonstrates the effectiveness of content analysis to map the research literature of the software engineering discipline. The results suggest that certain research themes in software engineering have remained constant, but with changing thrusts

0.043387435 = product of:
  0.17354974 = sum of:
    0.17354974 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17354974 = score(doc=5767,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.72699153 = fieldWeight in 5767, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5767)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We explore the intellectual subject structure and research themes in software engineering through the identification and analysis of a core journal literature. We examine this literature via two expert perspectives: that of the author, who identified significant work by citing it (journal cocitation analysis), and that of the professional indexer, who tags published work with subject terms to facilitate retrieval from a bibliographic database (subject profile analysis). The data sources are SCISEARCH (the on-line version of Science Citation Index), and INSPEC (a database covering software engineering, computer science, and information systems). We use data visualization tools (cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and PFNets) to show the "intellectual maps" of software engineering. Cocitation and subject profile analyses demonstrate that software engineering is a distinct interdisciplinary field, valuing practical and applied aspects, and spanning a subject continuum from "programming-in-the-smalI" to "programming-in-the-large." This continuum mirrors the software development life cycle by taking the operating system or major application from initial programming through project management, implementation, and maintenance. Object orientation is an integral but distinct subject area in software engineering. Key differences are the importance of management and programming: (1) cocitation analysis emphasizes project management and systems development; (2) programming techniques/languages are more influential in subject profiles; (3) cocitation profiles place object-oriented journals separately and centrally while the subject profile analysis locates these journals with the programming/languages group

0.04295094 = product of:
  0.08590188 = sum of:
    0.07085138 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07085138 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.015050502 = product of:
      0.030101003 = sum of:
        0.030101003 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030101003 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

0.04295094 = product of:
  0.08590188 = sum of:
    0.07085138 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07085138 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
    0.015050502 = product of:
      0.030101003 = sum of:
        0.030101003 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030101003 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.04295094 = product of:
  0.08590188 = sum of:
    0.07085138 = weight(_text_:engineering in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07085138 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=995)
    0.015050502 = product of:
      0.030101003 = sum of:
        0.030101003 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030101003 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15560047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044434052 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Collaboration is encouraged because it is believed to improve academic research, supported by indirect evidence in the form of more coauthored articles being more cited. Nevertheless, this might not reflect quality but increased self-citations or the "audience effect": citations from increased awareness through multiple author networks. We address this with the first science wide investigation into whether author numbers associate with journal article quality, using expert peer quality judgments for 122,331 articles from the 2014-20 UK national assessment. Spearman correlations between author numbers and quality scores show moderately strong positive associations (0.2-0.4) in the health, life, and physical sciences, but weak or no positive associations in engineering and social sciences, with weak negative/positive or no associations in various arts and humanities, and a possible negative association for decision sciences. This gives the first systematic evidence that greater numbers of authors associates with higher quality journal articles in the majority of academia outside the arts and humanities, at least for the UK. Positive associations between team size and citation counts in areas with little association between team size and quality also show that audience effects or other nonquality factors account for the higher citation rates of coauthored articles in some fields.

Date

22. 6.2023 18:11:50

0.035069644 = product of:
  0.14027858 = sum of:
    0.14027858 = weight(_text_:engineering in 761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14027858 = score(doc=761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.58762026 = fieldWeight in 761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=761)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Attempts some new approaches to the presentation of bibliometric macro level indicators. Mathematics, engineering, physics and chemistry subfields are assigned to 13 science areas. Each science area then appears on 1 table (left page) and 2 graphs (right page). The 1st graph shows the main citation rates with respect to the world average on a relational chart. The countries are represented by letter codes that can be found in the corresponding table on the facing page. The 2nd graph visualizes the countries' relative research activity in the given science areas as compared to the world standard

0.028340552 = product of:
  0.11336221 = sum of:
    0.11336221 = weight(_text_:engineering in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11336221 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.47486886 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag beschreibt a) die Ergebnisse einer Literaturstudie zur qualitativen Wahrnehmung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen, b) die Konstruktion eines daraus abgeleiteten Kriterienkatalogs zur Wahrnehmung der Qualität wissenschaftlicher Publikationen sowie c) der Überprüfung dieses Katalogs in qualitativen Interviews mit Wissenschaflterinnen und Wissenschaftlern aus dem Fachspektrum Chemie, Physik, Biologie, Materialwissenschaft und Engineering. Es zeigte sich, dass die Wahrnehmung von Qualität auf äußerlichen und von außen herangetragenen Faktoren, inhaltlichen / semantischen Faktoren und sprachlichen, syntaktischen sowie strukturellen Faktoren beruht.

0.025049746 = product of:
  0.100198984 = sum of:
    0.100198984 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100198984 = score(doc=5107,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.41972876 = fieldWeight in 5107, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5107)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Journal articles constitute the core documents for the diffusion of knowledge in the natural sciences. It has been argued that the same is not true for the social sciences and humanities where knowledge is more often disseminated in monographs that are not indexed in the journal-based databases used for bibliometric analysis. Previous studies have made only partial assessments of the role played by both serials and other types of literature. The importance of journal literature in the various scientific fields has therefore not been systematically characterized. The authors address this issue by providing a systematic measurement of the role played by journal literature in the building of knowledge in both the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences and humanities. Using citation data from the CD-ROM versions of the Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) databases from 1981 to 2000 (Thomson ISI, Philadelphia, PA), the authors quantify the share of citations to both serials and other types of literature. Variations in time and between fields are also analyzed. The results show that journal literature is increasingly important in the natural and social sciences, but that its role in the humanities is stagnant and has even tended to diminish slightly in the 1990s. Journal literature accounts for less than 50% of the citations in several disciplines of the social sciences and humanities; hence, special care should be used when using bibliometric indicators that rely only on journal literature.

0.025049746 = product of:
  0.100198984 = sum of:
    0.100198984 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100198984 = score(doc=1960,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.41972876 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.

0.025049746 = product of:
  0.100198984 = sum of:
    0.100198984 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100198984 = score(doc=2356,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.41972876 = fieldWeight in 2356, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2356)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

While several authors have argued that conference proceedings are an important source of scientific knowledge, the extent of their importance has not been measured in a systematic manner. This article examines the scientific impact and aging of conference proceedings compared to those of scientific literature in general. It shows that the relative importance of proceedings is diminishing over time and currently represents only 1.7% of references made in the natural sciences and engineering, and 2.5% in the social sciences and humanities. Although the scientific impact of proceedings is losing ground to other types of scientific literature in nearly all fields, it has grown from 8% of the references in engineering papers in the early 1980s to its current 10%. Proceedings play a particularly important role in computer sciences, where they account for close to 20% of the references. This article also shows that not unexpectedly, proceedings age faster than cited scientific literature in general. The evidence thus shows that proceedings have a relatively limited scientific impact, on average representing only about 2% of total citations, that their relative importance is shrinking, and that they become obsolete faster than the scientific literature in general.

0.025049746 = product of:
  0.100198984 = sum of:
    0.100198984 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100198984 = score(doc=3317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.41972876 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

0.024797983 = product of:
  0.099191934 = sum of:
    0.099191934 = weight(_text_:engineering in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099191934 = score(doc=37,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.41551027 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the construction of improved informetric models of individual scientific and technological areas on the basis of individual co citation clusters. The developed methodology of replenishment of research front with accidently absent papers describes the model more completely. Proposes the simple method of cluster 'dynamization' for the study of evolution of research area. The transition under consideration from co citation clusters to lexical maps of papers and patents enables the monitoring of the relationshuip between R and D in a given technological area. Provides the example from modern chemical engineering of Pressure-Swing Adsorption

0.021255413 = product of:
  0.08502165 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

0.021255413 = product of:
  0.08502165 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=1764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to provide a new insight into the reasons why authors cite. Design/methodology/approach The authors argue that, based on philosophical ideas about the essence of things, pure rational thinking about the role of citations leads to the answer. Findings - Citations originate from the interestingness of the investigated phenomenon. The essence of citation lies in the interaction between different ideas or perspectives on a phenomenon addressed in the citing as well as in the cited articles. Research limitations/implications - The findings only apply to ethical (not whimsical or self-serving) citations. As such citations reflect interactions of scientific ideas, they can reveal the evolution of science, revive the cognitive process of an investigated scientific phenomenon and reveal political and economic factors influencing the development of science. Originality/value - This article is the first to propose interestingness and the interaction of ideas as the basic reason for citing. This view on citations allows reverse engineering from citations to ideas and hence becomes useful for science policy.

0.021255413 = product of:
  0.08502165 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to identify the dynamic structure of several time-dependent, discipline-level citation networks through a path-based method. A network data set is prepared that comprises 27 subjects and their citations aggregated from more than 27,000 journals and proceedings indexed in the Scopus database. A maximum spanning tree method is employed to extract paths in the weighted, directed, and cyclic networks. This paper finds that subjects such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Materials Science, Physics, and Social Sciences are the ones with multiple branches in the spanning tree. This paper also finds that most paths connect science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields; 2 critical paths connecting STEM and non-STEM fields are the one from Mathematics to Decision Sciences and the one from Medicine to Social Sciences.

0.021255413 = product of:
  0.08502165 = sum of:
    0.08502165 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08502165 = score(doc=3092,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23872319 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044434052 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 3092, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3092)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study examines patterns of dynamic disciplinary knowledge production and diffusion. It uses a citation data set of Scopus-indexed journals and proceedings. The journal-level citation data set is aggregated into 27 subject areas and these subjects are selected as the unit of analysis. A 3-step approach is employed: the first step examines disciplines' citation characteristics through scientific trading dimensions; the second step analyzes citation flows between pairs of disciplines; and the third step uses egocentric citation networks to assess individual disciplines' citation flow diversity through Shannon entropy. The results show that measured by scientific impact, the subjects of Chemical Engineering, Energy, and Environmental Science have the fastest growth. Furthermore, most subjects are carrying out more diversified knowledge trading practices by importing higher volumes of knowledge from a greater number of subjects. The study also finds that the growth rates of disciplinary citations align with the growth rates of global research and development (R&D) expenditures, thus providing evidence to support the impact of R&D expenditures on knowledge production.