Search (112 results, page 1 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Wildner, B.: Web of Science - Scopus : Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen (2006) 0.02
    0.019445365 = product of:
      0.072920114 = sum of:
        0.006439812 = product of:
          0.012879624 = sum of:
            0.012879624 = weight(_text_:online in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012879624 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.024604581 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024604581 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.18538132 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
        0.033301905 = weight(_text_:web in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033301905 = score(doc=5034,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
        0.008573813 = product of:
          0.017147627 = sum of:
            0.017147627 = weight(_text_:22 in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.017147627 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5034, 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=5034)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    
    Abstract
    Evaluation ist an der Medizinischen Universität Wien ein wichtiges Thema. So werden die Ressourcen innerhalb der Universität entsprechend der in den Leistungskriterien definierten Bewertungsmethode verteilt, deren Grundlage ein für jeden Fachbereich eigens berechneter normierter Impact Factor darstellt. Wissenschaftliche Leistung kann aber auch auf andere Art gemessen werden. Innerhalb einer Universitätsklinik oder Forschungsgruppe werden die Publikationen der wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter mittels Zitierungsanalyse bewertet. Für eine Bewerbung auf bestimmte Stellen müssen die einzelnen Wissenschaftler jeweils aktuelle Zitierungsanalysen vorlegen. Seit 2005 stellt die Universitätsbibliothek der Medizinischen Universität Wien am Campus die Datenbank Scopus zur Verfügung. Dabei handelt es sich nicht nur um eine weitere naturwissenschaftliche Literaturdatenbank, sondern um ein Konkurrenzprodukt zum Web of Science, dessen Schwerpunkt in der Suche der Referenzfelder liegt und so die Beantwortung der Fragestellung, wie oft eine wissenschaftliche Publikation zitiert wird, ermöglicht. Im seltenen Idealfall liegt eine vollständige Publikationsliste vor, von der ausgehend man eine Zitierungsanalyse starten kann. Meist aber besteht der Wunsch, nur anhand eines Autorennamens und dem Wissen, in welchem Fachgebiet jemand wissenschaftlich tätig ist, rasch die Suche nach Zitierungen zu beginnen. Im Web of Science führt der Weg über eine Cited Reference Search zu einem Cited Reference Index, aus dem man die Zitierzahlen (Times Cited) zu den einzelnen Publikationen eines Autors entnehmen kann. Als Cited Author scheinen neben dem Erstautor auch alle Mitautoren auf, vorausgesetzt die Zitierung bezieht sich auf eine Publikation, die als Source Item im Web of Science in dem Zeitraum erscheint, der für die Institution subskribiert wurde. Abschließend müssen die einzelnen Zitierzahlen eigenhändig addiert werden und ergeben so die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen für einen bestimmten Autor. In Scopus wird nach einer Autorensuche ein Document Citation Overview geboten, der die Publikationen nach Erscheinungsjahr gereiht auflistet und gleichzeitig in einer Übersichtstabelle die Zitierzahlen pro Publikation und Jahr sowie die jeweiligen Gesamtzahlen angibt.
    Date
    4. 6.2006 17:22:15
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Online Mitteilungen. 2006, Nr.85, S.18-20 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 59(2006) H.1]
  2. Gorraiz, J.: "Web of Science" versus "Scopus" oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken (2006) 0.02
    0.019303892 = product of:
      0.096519455 = sum of:
        0.009659718 = product of:
          0.019319436 = sum of:
            0.019319436 = weight(_text_:online in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019319436 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.036906876 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036906876 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.278072 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
        0.049952857 = weight(_text_:web in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049952857 = score(doc=5021,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.48375595 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
      0.2 = coord(3/15)
    
    Abstract
    Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Online Mitteilungen. 2006, Nr.85, S.25-30 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 59(2006) H.1]
  3. Pipp, E.: Inhaltlicher Vergleich von Web of Science und Scopus an Hand der erfassten Zeitschriften (2006) 0.02
    0.018075546 = product of:
      0.090377726 = sum of:
        0.011269671 = product of:
          0.022539342 = sum of:
            0.022539342 = weight(_text_:online in 5940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022539342 = score(doc=5940,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 5940, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5940)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.0451422 = weight(_text_:web in 5940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0451422 = score(doc=5940,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 5940, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5940)
        0.033965856 = product of:
          0.06793171 = sum of:
            0.06793171 = weight(_text_:analyse in 5940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06793171 = score(doc=5940,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.40748656 = fieldWeight in 5940, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5940)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(3/15)
    
    Abstract
    Bibliographische Datenbanken sind immer noch von Bedeutung, obwohl diee-Zeitschriften-Plattformen der Verlage (z.B. ScienceDirect) und die Institutional Repositories (Publikationsdatenbanken einzelner wissenschaftlicher Institutionen) auch Suchmöglichkeiten anbieten. Nur in bibliographischen Datenbanken kann verlags- und institutionsübergreifend nach Fachliteratur zu einem Thema bzw. nach wissenschaftlichen Publikationen eines Autors / einer Autorin gesucht werden. Ein wichtiger Ansatzpunktzur Bewertung des Inhaltes einer bibliographischen Datenbank - und erst recht für einen inhaltlichen Vergleich zwischen zwei Konkurrenzdatenbanken - ist daher eine Analyse der darin enthaltenen Zeitschriften hinsichtlich der Anzahl der erfassten Zeitschriften, aber auch hinsichtlich der Wissenschaftlichkeit, der fachlichen Ausrichtung, der Vollständigkeit und der Aktualität derselben. Im Folgenden soll ein solcher Vergleich für das Web of Science und für Scopus versucht werden.
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Online Mitteilungen. 2006, Nr.85, S.3-17 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 59(2006) H.1]
  4. Mayr, P.; Walter, A.-K.: Abdeckung und Aktualität des Suchdienstes Google Scholar (2006) 0.01
    0.013049379 = product of:
      0.097870335 = sum of:
        0.06705883 = weight(_text_:suchmaschine in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06705883 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17890577 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.6542544 = idf(docFreq=420, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = 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)
        0.030811504 = product of:
          0.061623007 = sum of:
            0.061623007 = weight(_text_:recherche in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.061623007 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17150146 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.35931477 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.4202437 = idf(docFreq=531, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    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.
  5. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01
    0.013042988 = product of:
      0.06521494 = sum of:
        0.013660905 = product of:
          0.02732181 = sum of:
            0.02732181 = weight(_text_:online in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02732181 = score(doc=590,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.284522 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.038693316 = weight(_text_:web in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038693316 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
        0.01286072 = product of:
          0.02572144 = sum of:
            0.02572144 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02572144 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(3/15)
    
    Content
    "Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
    Object
    Web of Science
  6. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.01
    0.012837954 = product of:
      0.09628465 = sum of:
        0.026327467 = weight(_text_:web in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026327467 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
        0.06995718 = sum of:
          0.048522647 = weight(_text_:analyse in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.048522647 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
                0.031640913 = queryNorm
              0.29106182 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
          0.021434534 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.021434534 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.031640913 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  7. Zhao, D.: Challenges of scholarly publications on the Web to the evaluation of science : a comparison of author visibility on the Web and in print journals (2005) 0.01
    0.01176003 = product of:
      0.08820022 = sum of:
        0.04305802 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04305802 = score(doc=1065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.32441732 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
        0.0451422 = weight(_text_:web in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0451422 = score(doc=1065,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.
  8. Hauffe, H.: ¬The role of citation analysis in the history and evaluation of science : Bericht über einen Vortrag von Eugene Garfield (Wien, 26. Mai 2004) (2004) 0.01
    0.010348132 = product of:
      0.077610984 = sum of:
        0.01609953 = product of:
          0.03219906 = sum of:
            0.03219906 = weight(_text_:online in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03219906 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.33531237 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.061511453 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061511453 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.4634533 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Source
    Online Mitteilungen. 2004, Nr.79, S.7-9 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 57(2004) H.2]
  9. Thelwall, M.: Extracting macroscopic information from Web links (2001) 0.01
    0.010180832 = product of:
      0.07635623 = sum of:
        0.030755727 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030755727 = score(doc=6851,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
        0.045600507 = weight(_text_:web in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045600507 = score(doc=6851,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    Much has been written about the potential and pitfalls of macroscopic Web-based link analysis, yet there have been no studies that have provided clear statistical evidence that any of the proposed calculations can produce results over large areas of the Web that correlate with phenomena external to the Internet. This article attempts to provide such evidence through an evaluation of Ingwersen's (1998) proposed external Web Impact Factor (WIF) for the original use of the Web: the interlinking of academic research. In particular, it studies the case of the relationship between academic hyperlinks and research activity for universities in Britain, a country chosen for its variety of institutions and the existence of an official government rating exercise for research. After reviewing the numerous reasons why link counts may be unreliable, it demonstrates that four different WIFs do, in fact, correlate with the conventional academic research measures. The WIF delivering the greatest correlation with research rankings was the ratio of Web pages with links pointing at research-based pages to faculty numbers. The scarcity of links to electronic academic papers in the data set suggests that, in contrast to citation analysis, this WIF is measuring the reputations of universities and their scholars, rather than the quality of their publications
  10. Daquino, M.; Peroni, S.; Shotton, D.; Colavizza, G.; Ghavimi, B.; Lauscher, A.; Mayr, P.; Romanello, M.; Zumstein, P.: ¬The OpenCitations Data Model (2020) 0.01
    0.010080026 = product of:
      0.07560019 = sum of:
        0.036906876 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036906876 = score(doc=38,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.278072 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
        0.038693316 = weight(_text_:web in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038693316 = score(doc=38,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    A variety of schemas and ontologies are currently used for the machine-readable description of bibliographic entities and citations. This diversity, and the reuse of the same ontology terms with different nuances, generates inconsistencies in data. Adoption of a single data model would facilitate data integration tasks regardless of the data supplier or context application. In this paper we present the OpenCitations Data Model (OCDM), a generic data model for describing bibliographic entities and citations, developed using Semantic Web technologies. We also evaluate the effective reusability of OCDM according to ontology evaluation practices, mention existing users of OCDM, and discuss the use and impact of OCDM in the wider open science community.
    Content
    Erschienen in: The Semantic Web - ISWC 2020, 19th International Semantic Web Conference, Athens, Greece, November 2-6, 2020, Proceedings, Part II. Vgl.: DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-62466-8_28.
  11. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01
    0.010037424 = product of:
      0.05018712 = sum of:
        0.009659718 = product of:
          0.019319436 = sum of:
            0.019319436 = weight(_text_:online in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019319436 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.022339594 = weight(_text_:web in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022339594 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
        0.018187806 = product of:
          0.036375612 = sum of:
            0.036375612 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.036375612 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(3/15)
    
    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
  12. New Web Citation Index (2004) 0.01
    0.009712751 = product of:
      0.07284563 = sum of:
        0.009659718 = product of:
          0.019319436 = sum of:
            0.019319436 = weight(_text_:online in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019319436 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.063185915 = weight(_text_:web in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063185915 = score(doc=2270,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    Philadelphia, PA USA-London UK-Princeton, NJ February, 25, 2004 - Today, Thomson ISI and NEC Laboratories America (NEC) announced their collaboration to create a comprehensive, multidisciplinary citation index for Web-based scholarly resources. The new Web Citation Index(tm) will combine a suite of technologies developed by NEC, including "autonomous citation indexing" tools from NEC's CiteSeer environment, with the capabilities underlying ISI Web of KnowledgeSM. Thomson ISI editors will carefully monitor the quality of this new resource to ensure all indexed material meets the Thomson ISI high-quality standards. During 2004, Thomson ISI and NEC will operate a pilot of the new resource to receive feedback from the scientific and scholarly community. Full access to the index is projected for early 2005. When fully operational, the new resource will be a unique content collection within ISI Web of Knowledge. It will complement the Thomson ISI Web of Science(r), and provide researchers with a new gateway to discovery 4/3 using citation relationships among Web-based documents, such as pre-prints, proceedings, and "open access" research publications.
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Online Mitteilungen. 2004, Nr.78, S.39 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 57(2004) H.1]
  13. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations : a multi-discipline exploratory analysis (2007) 0.01
    0.009367212 = product of:
      0.07025409 = sum of:
        0.011384088 = product of:
          0.022768175 = sum of:
            0.022768175 = weight(_text_:online in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.022768175 = score(doc=337,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.058870003 = weight(_text_:web in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058870003 = score(doc=337,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.
  14. Lawrence, S.; Giles, C.L.; Bollaker, K.: Digital libraries and Autonomous Citation Indexing (1999) 0.01
    0.009322427 = product of:
      0.0699182 = sum of:
        0.033011325 = weight(_text_:software in 4951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033011325 = score(doc=4951,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.2629875 = fieldWeight in 4951, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4951)
        0.036906876 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036906876 = score(doc=4951,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.278072 = fieldWeight in 4951, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4951)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    Autonomous Citation Indexing (ACI) automates the construction of citation indexes - Lower cost, wider availability: ACI is completely autonomous - no manual effort is required. This should result in lower cost and wider availability. Broader coverage: Because no manual effort is required, there are few barriers to indexing a broader range of literature, compared to indexes like the Science Citation Index that require manual effort. More timely feedback: Conference papers, technical reports, and preprints can be indexed, providing far more timely feedback in many cases (often such publications appear far in advance of corresponding journal publications). Citation context: ACI groups together the context of citations to a given article, allowing researchers to easily see what is being said and why the article was cited. Benefits for both literature search and evaluation. Freely available: Our implementation of ACI is available at no cost for non-commercial use. Several orgnizations have requested the software and expressed interest in providing an index within their domain, or in using ACI within their own digital libraries.
  15. Small, H.: Visualizing science by citation mapping (1999) 0.01
    0.008610143 = product of:
      0.064576074 = sum of:
        0.03851321 = weight(_text_:software in 3920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851321 = score(doc=3920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.30681872 = fieldWeight in 3920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3920)
        0.026062861 = weight(_text_:web in 3920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026062861 = score(doc=3920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3920)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    Science mapping is discussed in the general context of information visualization. Attempts to construct maps of science using citation data are reviewed, focusing on the use of co-citation clusters. New work is reported on a dataset of about 36.000 documents using simplified methods for ordination, and nesting maps hierarchically. an overall map of the dataset shows the multidisciplinary breadth of the document sample, and submaps allow drilling down the document level. An effort to visualize these data using advanced virtual reality software is described, and the creation of document pathways through the map is seen as a realization of Bush's associative trails
    Object
    Web of Science
  16. Leydesdorff, L.; Salah, A.A.A.: Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index : the journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "digital humanities" as a topic (2010) 0.01
    0.007899529 = product of:
      0.05924647 = sum of:
        0.036906876 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036906876 = score(doc=3436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.278072 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
        0.022339594 = weight(_text_:web in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022339594 = score(doc=3436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.
  17. White, H.D.: Citation analysis : history (2009) 0.01
    0.007768689 = product of:
      0.058265164 = sum of:
        0.027509436 = weight(_text_:software in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027509436 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12552431 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
        0.030755727 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030755727 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.23172665 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    References from publications are at the same time citations to other publications. This entry introduces some of the practical uses of citation data in science and scholarship. At the individual level citations identify and permit the retrieval of specific editions of works, while also suggesting their subject matter, authority, and age. Through citation indexes, retrievals may include not only the earlier items referred to by a given work, but also the later items that cite that given work in turn. Some technical notes on retrieval are included here. Counts of citations received over time, and measures derived from them, reveal the varying impacts of works, authors, journals, organizations, and countries. This has obvious implications for the evaluation of, e.g., library collections, academics, research teams, and science policies. When treated as linkages between pairs of publications, references and citations reveal intellectual ties. Several kinds of links have been defined, such as cocitation, bibliographic coupling, and intercitation. In the aggregate, these links form networks that compactly suggest the intellectual histories of research specialties and disciplines, especially when the networks are visualized through mapping software. Citation analysis is of course not without critics, who have long pointed out imperfections in the data or in analytical techniques. However, the criticisms have generally been met by strong counterarguments from proponents.
  18. Gering, E.: ¬Die Analyse von Online-Datenbanken : ein Instrument für das Beobachten von Forschungsaktivitäten; dargestellt an einem Forschungsfeld der Festkörperphysik (1995) 0.01
    0.007604355 = product of:
      0.05703266 = sum of:
        0.01821454 = product of:
          0.03642908 = sum of:
            0.03642908 = weight(_text_:online in 2660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03642908 = score(doc=2660,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 2660, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2660)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.03881812 = product of:
          0.07763624 = sum of:
            0.07763624 = weight(_text_:analyse in 2660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07763624 = score(doc=2660,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.46569893 = fieldWeight in 2660, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2660)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    Sinnvolle forschungspolitische bzw. forschungsstrategische Entscheidungsprozesse bedürfen beim Wissenschafts- und Forschungsmanagement ausreichender Informationen hinsichtlich der Forschungsaktivitäten bestimmter Wissenschaftlergruppen, Institutionen bzw. Länder. Durch entsprechende Vergleichsuntersuchungen lassen sich u.a. auch thematische, länderweite bzw. zeitkritische Forschungsschwerpunkte herausarbeiten. Die folgende Arbeit skizziert die Möglichkeiten von Forschungsanalysen mittels Online-Datenbanken und verdeutlicht die spezifischen Möglichekeiten und Probleme am Beispiel von Arbeiten aus der Festkörperphysik
  19. Stock, W.G.: ¬Ein Netz wissenschaftlicher Informationen : gesponnen aus Fußnoten (1999) 0.01
    0.0072451876 = product of:
      0.054338906 = sum of:
        0.009659718 = product of:
          0.019319436 = sum of:
            0.019319436 = weight(_text_:online in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019319436 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.044679187 = weight(_text_:web in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044679187 = score(doc=3890,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    Das ISI in Philadelphia bündelt seine großen Zitationsdatenbanken und bietet sie (vorzugsweise als Intranet-, aber auch als Internetlösung) als 'Web of Science'an. Im derzeitigen entwicklungsstand geht 'Web of Science' bis in die 70er Jahre zurück und weist damit knapp 20 Mill. Quellenartikel mit darin enthaltenen rund 300 Mill. Zitationen in einer einzigen datenbank nach. Neben 'gewohnten' Suchstrategien etwa nach Sachthemen oder Namen werden zitationsanalytische Suchstrategien geboten: Recherchen nach zitierter Literatur, nach zitierenden Artikeln und nach (im Sinne gemeinsamer Fußnoten) 'verwandten' Artikeln. Die Ausgabefunktionen umfassen Document Delivery via ISI sowie Links zu Artikeln, die parallel zur Druckausgabe im WWW erscheinen. Durch die Multidisziplinarität der ISI-Datenbanken sind als Kundenkreis vor allem Einrichtungen angesprochen, die mehrere Wissenschaftsfächer berühren. Hochschulbibliotheken oder Bibliotheken großer Forschungseinrichtungen dürften am 'Web of Science' kaum vorbeikommen. Parallele Produkte bei Online-Archiven, auf CD-ROM oder als Druckausgabe verlieren an Bedeutung
    Object
    Web of Science
  20. McVeigh, M.E.: Citation indexes and the Web of Science (2009) 0.01
    0.0072451876 = product of:
      0.054338906 = sum of:
        0.009659718 = product of:
          0.019319436 = sum of:
            0.019319436 = weight(_text_:online in 3848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019319436 = score(doc=3848,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.031640913 = queryNorm
                0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 3848, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3848)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.044679187 = weight(_text_:web in 3848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044679187 = score(doc=3848,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 3848, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3848)
      0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    
    Abstract
    The Web of Science, an online database of bibliographic information produced by Thomson Reuters- draws its real value from the scholarly citation index at its core. By indexing the cited references from each paper as a separate part of the bibliographic data, a citation index creates a pathway by which a paper can be linked backward in time to the body of work that preceded it, as well as linked forward in time to its scholarly descendants. This entry provides a brief history of the development of the citation index, its core functionalities, and the way these unique data are provided to users through the Web of Science.
    Object
    Web of Science

Languages

  • e 87
  • d 24
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 108
  • el 6
  • m 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Classifications