Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0056086862 = product of:
  0.0392608 = sum of:
    0.0392608 = product of:
      0.0785216 = sum of:
        0.0785216 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0785216 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.0021032572 = product of:
  0.0147228 = sum of:
    0.0147228 = product of:
      0.0294456 = sum of:
        0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0294456 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0021032572 = product of:
  0.0147228 = sum of:
    0.0147228 = product of:
      0.0294456 = sum of:
        0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0294456 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 5.1999 19:33:24

0.0018148007 = product of:
  0.012703604 = sum of:
    0.012703604 = product of:
      0.06351802 = sum of:
        0.06351802 = weight(_text_:system in 5129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06351802 = score(doc=5129,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 5129, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5129)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

States that it can be shown that claims of a lack of theories of citation are also indicative of a great need for a theory which links science dynamics and measurement. There is a wide gap between qualitative (science dynamics) and quantitative (measurement) approaches. To link them, proposes the use of the citation system, that potentially bridges a gap between measurement and epistemology, by applying system theory to the publication system

0.0013752056 = product of:
  0.009626439 = sum of:
    0.009626439 = product of:
      0.048132192 = sum of:
        0.048132192 = weight(_text_:system in 5126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048132192 = score(doc=5126,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.42190298 = fieldWeight in 5126, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5126)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The construction of virtual science landscapes based on citation networks and the strategic use of the information therein shed new light on the issues of the evolution of the science system and possibilities for control. Leydesdorff's approach to citation theory described in his 1998 article (see this issue of LISA) takes into account the dual layered character of communication networks and the second order nature of the science system. This perspective may help to sharpen the awareness of scientists and science policy makers for possible feedback loops within actions and activities in the science system, and probably nonlinear phenomena resulting therefrom. Sketches an additional link to geometrically oriented evolutionary theories and uses a specific landscape concept as a framework for some comments

0.0012685166 = product of:
  0.008879616 = sum of:
    0.008879616 = product of:
      0.044398077 = sum of:
        0.044398077 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 8219) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044398077 = score(doc=8219,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 8219, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8219)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Explores the relationship between the number of cited references used in a citation search and retrieval effectiveness. Focuses on analysing in terms of information retrieval effectiveness, the overlap among posting sets retrieved by various combinations of cited references. Findings from three case studies show the more cited references used for a citation search, the better the performance, in terms of retrieving more relevant documents, up to a point of diminishing returns. The overall level of overlap among relevant documents sets was found to be low. If only some of the cited references among many candidates are used for a citation search, a significant proportion of relevant documents may be missed. The characteristics of cited references showed that some variables are good indicators to predict relevance to a given question

0.0011837021 = product of:
  0.008285915 = sum of:
    0.008285915 = product of:
      0.04142957 = sum of:
        0.04142957 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04142957 = score(doc=3741,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 3741, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3741)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Investigates the relative efficacy of searching by terms and by citations in searches collected in health science libraries. In pilot and field studies the odds that overlap items retrieved would be relevant or partially relevant were greatly improved. In the field setting citation searching was able to add average of 24% recall to traditional subject retrieval. Attempts to identify distinguishing characteristics in queries which might benefit most from additional citation searches proved inclusive. Online access of citation databases has been hampered by their high cost

0.0011837021 = product of:
  0.008285915 = sum of:
    0.008285915 = product of:
      0.04142957 = sum of:
        0.04142957 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04142957 = score(doc=4842,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Fortsetzung von pt.1: experimental retrieval results are presented as a function of the exhaustivity and similarity of the composite representations and reveal consistent patterns from which optimal performance levels can be identified. The optimal performance values provide an assessment of the absolute capacity of each composite representation to associate documents relevant to different queries in single-link hierarchies. The effectiveness of the exhaustive representation composed of references and citations is materially superior to the effectiveness of exhaustive composite representations that include subject descriptions

0.0010357393 = product of:
  0.007250175 = sum of:
    0.007250175 = product of:
      0.036250874 = sum of:
        0.036250874 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036250874 = score(doc=2809,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Provides a synoptic review and history of citation indexes and their evolution into research evaluation tools including a discussion of the use of bibliometric data for evaluating US institutions (academic departments) by the National Research Council (NRC). Covers the origin and uses of periodical impact factors, validation studies of citation analysis, information retrieval and dissemination (current awareness), citation consciousness, historiography and science mapping, Citation Classics, and the history of contemporary science. Illustrates the retrieval of information by cited reference searching, especially as it applies to avoiding duplicated research. Discusses the 15 year cumulative impacts of periodicals and the percentage of uncitedness, the emergence of scientometrics, old boy networks, and citation frequency distributions. Concludes with observations about the future of citation indexing

0.0010357393 = product of:
  0.007250175 = sum of:
    0.007250175 = product of:
      0.036250874 = sum of:
        0.036250874 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036250874 = score(doc=3571,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 3571, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3571)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Discusses the Web of Science database recently introduced by ISI, and which is compiled from 8.000 journals covered in the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Briefly compares the database with the Citation Indexes as provided by the BIDS service at the University of Bath. Explores the characteristics and usefulness of the WoS through a search of it for articles on the topic of image retrieval by shape matching. Suggests that the selection of articles of interest is much easier and far quicker using the WoS than other methods of conducting a search using ISI's data

9.0740033E-4 = product of:
  0.006351802 = sum of:
    0.006351802 = product of:
      0.03175901 = sum of:
        0.03175901 = weight(_text_:system in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175901 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Ein überfordertes Gutachter-System, knapper fließende Forschungsgelder sowie die starke Faszination von Ranglisten bewirken zunehmend den Einsatz bibliometrischer Methoden zur Messung von Forschungsqualität. Grundlage der meisten Bewertungen ist der Science Citation Index, der nun auch in der Version als Online-Datenbank für umfangreiche Analysen genutzt werden kann. Erweiterungen der Retrievalsprache beim Host STN International ermöglichen statistische Analysen, die bisher nur dem SCI-Hersteller und wenigen Spezialisten vorbehalten waren. Voraussetzung für eine sinnvolle Anwendung sind vor allem die Wahl geeigneter Selektionskriterien sowie die sorgfältige Interpretation der Ergebnisse im Rahmen der Grenzen dieser Methoden

9.0740033E-4 = product of:
  0.006351802 = sum of:
    0.006351802 = product of:
      0.03175901 = sum of:
        0.03175901 = weight(_text_:system in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175901 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Since the 'Science Citation Index' emerged within the system of scientific communication in 1964, an intense controversy about its character has been raging: in what sense can citation analysis be trusted? This debate can be characterized as the confrontation of different perspectives on science. Discusses the citation representation of science: the way the citation creates a new reality of as well as in the world of science; the main features of this reality; and some implications for science and science policy

9.0740033E-4 = product of:
  0.006351802 = sum of:
    0.006351802 = product of:
      0.03175901 = sum of:
        0.03175901 = weight(_text_:system in 4719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03175901 = score(doc=4719,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 4719, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4719)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

6.8055023E-4 = product of:
  0.0047638514 = sum of:
    0.0047638514 = product of:
      0.023819257 = sum of:
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Gives an outline of a new bibliometric database based upon all articles published by authors from the Netherlands and processed during 1980-1993 by ISI for the SCI, SSCI and AHCI. Describes various types of information added to the database: data on articles citing the Dutch publications; detailed citation data on ISI journals and subfields; and a classification system of the main publishing organizations. Also gives an overview of the types of bibliometric indicators constructed. and discusses their relationship to indicators developed by other researchers in the field. Gives 2 applications to illustrate the potentials of the database and of the bibliometric indicators derived from it: one that represents a synthesis of 'classical' macro indicator studies on the one hand and bibliometric analyses of research groups on the other; and a second that gives for the first time a detailed analysis of a country's publications per institutional sector

5.2312744E-4 = product of:
  0.003661892 = sum of:
    0.003661892 = product of:
      0.01830946 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=5644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 5644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5644)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The act of referencing another author's work in a scholarly or research paper is usually assumed to signal a direct semantic relationship between the citing and cited work. The present article reports a study that examines this assumption directly. The purpose of the research is to investigate the semantic relationship between citing and cited documents for a sample of document pairs in three journals in library and information science: 'Library journal', 'College and research libraries' and 'Journal of the American Society for Information Science'. A macroanalysis, absed on a comparison of the Library of Congress class numbers assigned citing and cited documents, and a microanalysis, based on a comparison of descriptors assigned citing and cited documents by three indexing and abstracting journals, ERIC, LISA and LiLi, were conducted. Both analyses suggest that the subject similarity among pairs of cited and citing documents is typically very small, supporting a subjective, psychological view of relevance and a trial-and-error, heuristic understanding of the information search and research processes. The results of the study have implications for collection development, for an understanding of psychological relevance, and for the results of doing information retrieval using cited references. Several intriguing methodological questions are raised for future research, including the role of indexing depth, specifity, and quality on the measurement of document similarity