Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03620401 = product of:
  0.090510026 = sum of:
    0.07540775 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07540775 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = 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)
    0.015102277 = product of:
      0.045306828 = sum of:
        0.045306828 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045306828 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.01777378 = product of:
  0.08886889 = sum of:
    0.08886889 = weight(_text_:engineering in 5107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08886889 = score(doc=5107,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.01777378 = product of:
  0.08886889 = sum of:
    0.08886889 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08886889 = score(doc=2356,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.01256796 = product of:
  0.0628398 = sum of:
    0.0628398 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0628398 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 2162, 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=2162)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of Clinical Medicine, Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many Clinical Medicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub-disciplines. This suggests that Mendeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, Mendeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.

0.0017959764 = product of:
  0.008979882 = sum of:
    0.008979882 = product of:
      0.026939645 = sum of:
        0.026939645 = weight(_text_:29 in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026939645 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2933, 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=2933)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

19. 7.2009 12:20:29

0.0017959764 = product of:
  0.008979882 = sum of:
    0.008979882 = product of:
      0.026939645 = sum of:
        0.026939645 = weight(_text_:29 in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026939645 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3162, 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=3162)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18.10.2016 14:29:07

0.0010678921 = product of:
  0.0053394604 = sum of:
    0.0053394604 = product of:
      0.016018381 = sum of:
        0.016018381 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016018381 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22