Search (221 results, page 1 of 12)

0.045929443 = product of:
  0.22964722 = sum of:
    0.22964722 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22964722 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30645886 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036147494 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

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

0.03308552 = product of:
  0.1654276 = sum of:
    0.1654276 = product of:
      0.24814138 = sum of:
        0.17957658 = weight(_text_:1990 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17957658 = score(doc=6902,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.1629155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            1.1022682 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
        0.06856481 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06856481 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12658237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.368-375

Year

1990

0.03308552 = product of:
  0.1654276 = sum of:
    0.1654276 = product of:
      0.24814138 = sum of:
        0.17957658 = weight(_text_:1990 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17957658 = score(doc=4689,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.1629155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            1.1022682 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
        0.06856481 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06856481 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12658237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:55

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.376-386

Year

1990

0.027457047 = product of:
  0.13728523 = sum of:
    0.13728523 = sum of:
      0.040562212 = weight(_text_:1990 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040562212 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1629155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036147494 = queryNorm
          0.248977 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
      0.072235584 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.072235584 = score(doc=4147,freq=5.0), product of:
          0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036147494 = queryNorm
          0.41779095 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
            2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
              5.0 = termFreq=5.0
            4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
      0.024487434 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024487434 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12658237 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.036147494 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.

Date

8. 1.2011 19:22:13

Source

Journal of documentation. 66(2010) no.5, S.681-705

Year

2010

0.015475682 = product of:
  0.07737841 = sum of:
    0.07737841 = product of:
      0.11606761 = sum of:
        0.08668269 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08668269 = score(doc=4000,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
        0.029384919 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029384919 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12658237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

28. 9.2010 12:54:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2086-2096

Year

2010

0.015410258 = product of:
  0.07705129 = sum of:
    0.07705129 = product of:
      0.23115386 = sum of:
        0.23115386 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23115386 = score(doc=4206,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            1.336931 = fieldWeight in 4206, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4206)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 44(2010), S.xxx-xxx

Year

2010

0.014022891 = product of:
  0.070114456 = sum of:
    0.070114456 = product of:
      0.10517168 = sum of:
        0.040562212 = weight(_text_:1990 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040562212 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1629155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.248977 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
        0.06460947 = weight(_text_:2010 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06460947 = score(doc=2047,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.37368357 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US.

0.011557693 = product of:
  0.05778846 = sum of:
    0.05778846 = product of:
      0.17336538 = sum of:
        0.17336538 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17336538 = score(doc=3594,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            1.0026982 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1514-1516

Year

2010

0.011557693 = product of:
  0.05778846 = sum of:
    0.05778846 = product of:
      0.17336538 = sum of:
        0.17336538 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17336538 = score(doc=1597,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            1.0026982 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 44(2010) no.1, S.65-114

Year

2010

0.0114997355 = product of:
  0.057498675 = sum of:
    0.057498675 = product of:
      0.08624801 = sum of:
        0.040562212 = weight(_text_:1990 in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040562212 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1629155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.248977 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
        0.045685794 = weight(_text_:2010 in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045685794 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

0.011227718 = product of:
  0.056138586 = sum of:
    0.056138586 = product of:
      0.08420788 = sum of:
        0.054822955 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054822955 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.31708103 = fieldWeight in 1639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1639)
        0.029384919 = weight(_text_:22 in 1639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029384919 = score(doc=1639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12658237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1639, 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=1639)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We explore classifying scientific disciplines including their temporal features by focusing on their collaboration structures over time. Bibliometric data for Slovenian researchers registered at the Slovenian Research Agency were used. These data were obtained from the Slovenian National Current Research Information System. We applied a recently developed hierarchical clustering procedure for symbolic data to the coauthorship structure of scientific disciplines. To track temporal changes, we divided data for the period 1986-2010 into five 5-year time periods. The clusters of disciplines for the Slovene science system revealed 5 clusters of scientific disciplines that, in large measure, correspond with the official national classification of sciences. However, there were also some significant differences pointing to the need for a dynamic classification system of sciences to better characterize them. Implications stemming from these results, especially with regard to classifying scientific disciplines, understanding the collaborative structure of science, and research and development policies, are discussed.

Date

21. 1.2015 14:55:22

0.010407942 = product of:
  0.052039713 = sum of:
    0.052039713 = product of:
      0.07805957 = sum of:
        0.048674654 = weight(_text_:1990 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048674654 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1629155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.2987724 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
        0.029384919 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029384919 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12658237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Citation rates are becoming increasingly important in judging the research quality of journals, institutions and departments, and individual faculty. This paper looks at the pattern of citations across different management science journals and over time. A stochastic model is proposed which views the generating mechanism of citations as a gamma mixture of Poisson processes generating overall a negative binomial distribution. This is tested empirically with a large sample of papers published in 1990 from six management science journals and found to fit well. The model is extended to include obsolescence, i.e., that the citation rate for a paper varies over its cited lifetime. This leads to the additional citations distribution which shows that future citations are a linear function of past citations with a time-dependent and decreasing slope. This is also verified empirically in a way that allows different obsolescence functions to be fitted to the data. Conclusions concerning the predictability of future citations, and future research in this area are discussed.

Date

26.12.2007 19:22:05

0.009631412 = product of:
  0.04815706 = sum of:
    0.04815706 = product of:
      0.14447117 = sum of:
        0.14447117 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14447117 = score(doc=3340,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.8355819 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.2, S.419-423

Year

2010

0.009356431 = product of:
  0.04678215 = sum of:
    0.04678215 = product of:
      0.07017323 = sum of:
        0.045685794 = weight(_text_:2010 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045685794 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
        0.024487434 = weight(_text_:22 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024487434 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12658237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper deals with the role of a journal's publisher country in determining the expected citation rates of the articles published in it. We analyze whether a paper has a higher citation rate when it is published in one of the large publisher nations, the U.S., U.K., or the Netherlands, compared to a hypothetical situation when the same paper is published in journals of different origin. This would constitute a "free lunch," which could be explained by a Matthew effect visible on the country-level, similar to the well-documented Matthew effect on the author-level. We first use a simulation model that highlights increasing citation returns to quality as the central key condition on which such a Matthew effect may emerge. Then we use an international bibliometric panel data set of forty-nine countries for the years 2000-2010 and show that such a "free lunch" implied by this Matthew effect can be observed for top journals from the U.S. and depending on the specification also from the U.K. and the Netherlands, while there is no effect for lower-ranked American journals and negative effects for lower-ranked British journals as well as those coming from the Netherlands.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:45:49

0.009273293 = product of:
  0.046366468 = sum of:
    0.046366468 = product of:
      0.1390994 = sum of:
        0.1390994 = weight(_text_:1990 in 5065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1390994 = score(doc=5065,freq=3.0), product of:
            0.1629155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.85381323 = fieldWeight in 5065, product of:
              1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
                3.0 = termFreq=3.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5065)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Year

1990

0.008673287 = product of:
  0.043366432 = sum of:
    0.043366432 = product of:
      0.06504965 = sum of:
        0.040562212 = weight(_text_:1990 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040562212 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1629155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.248977 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
        0.024487434 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024487434 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12658237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.

Date

22. 7.2006 16:11:05

0.008289403 = product of:
  0.041447017 = sum of:
    0.041447017 = product of:
      0.062170524 = sum of:
        0.047478065 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047478065 = score(doc=3809,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.2746002 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
        0.014692459 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014692459 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12658237 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.008058217 = product of:
  0.040291086 = sum of:
    0.040291086 = product of:
      0.12087326 = sum of:
        0.12087326 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12087326 = score(doc=1259,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.699098 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study continues a long history of author cocitation analysis (and more recently, author bibliographic coupling analysis) of the intellectual structure of information science (IS) into the time period 2006 to 2010 (IS 2006-2010). We find that web technologies continue to drive developments, especially at the research front, although perhaps more indirectly than before. A broadening of perspectives is visible in IS 2006-2010, where network science becomes influential and where full-text analysis methods complement traditional computer science influences. Research in the areas of the h-index and mapping of science appears to have been highlights of IS 2006-2011. This study tests and confirms a forecast made previously by comparing knowledge-base and research-front findings for IS 2001-2005, which expected both the information retrieval (IR) systems and webometrics specialties to shrink in 2006 to 2010. A corresponding comparison of the knowledge base and research front of IS 2006-2010 suggests a continuing decline of the IR systems specialty in the near future, but also a considerable (re)growth of the webometrics area after a period of decline from 2001 to 2005 and 2006 to 2010, with the latter due perhaps in part to its contribution to an emerging web science.

0.007948537 = product of:
  0.039742686 = sum of:
    0.039742686 = product of:
      0.11922806 = sum of:
        0.11922806 = weight(_text_:1990 in 5040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11922806 = score(doc=5040,freq=3.0), product of:
            0.1629155 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.7318399 = fieldWeight in 5040, product of:
              1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
                3.0 = termFreq=3.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5040)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Year

1990

0.007705129 = product of:
  0.038525645 = sum of:
    0.038525645 = product of:
      0.11557693 = sum of:
        0.11557693 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11557693 = score(doc=3308,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.17289887 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036147494 = queryNorm
            0.6684655 = fieldWeight in 3308, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3308)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.1-12

Year

2010