Search (161 results, page 1 of 9)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009) 0.03 
    0.032291643 = product of:
  0.09687492 = sum of:
    0.05764047 = weight(_text_:problem in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05764047 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
    0.03923445 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03923445 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2751, 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=2751)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:05:07
  2. D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011) 0.03 
    0.032291643 = product of:
  0.09687492 = sum of:
    0.05764047 = weight(_text_:problem in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05764047 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
    0.03923445 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03923445 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    National exercises for the evaluation of research activity by universities are becoming regular practice in ever more countries. These exercises have mainly been conducted through the application of peer-review methods. Bibliometrics has not been able to offer a valid large-scale alternative because of almost overwhelming difficulties in identifying the true author of each publication. We will address this problem by presenting a heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometric datasets for large-scale research assessments. The application proposed concerns the Italian university system, comprising 80 universities and a research staff of over 60,000 scientists. The key advantage of the proposed approach is the ease of implementation. The algorithms are of practical application and have considerably better scalability and expandability properties than state-of-the-art unsupervised approaches. Moreover, the performance in terms of precision and recall, which can be further improved, seems thoroughly adequate for the typical needs of large-scale bibliometric research assessments.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:06:52
  3. Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011) 0.03 
    0.032291643 = product of:
  0.09687492 = sum of:
    0.05764047 = weight(_text_:problem in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05764047 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 4192, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4192)
    0.03923445 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03923445 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    This is a study of coverage and overlap in second-generation social sciences and humanities journal lists, with attention paid to curation and the judgment of scholarliness. We identify four factors underpinning coverage shortfalls: journal language, country, publisher size, and age. Analyzing these factors turns our attention to the process of assessing a journal as scholarly, which is a necessary foundation for every list of scholarly journals. Although scholarliness should be a quality inherent in the journal, coverage falls short because groups assessing scholarliness have different perspectives on the social sciences and humanities literature. That the four factors shape perspectives on the literature points to a deeper problem of fragmentation within the scholarly community. We propose reducing this fragmentation as the best method to reduce coverage shortfalls.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:21:28
  4. Mulkay, M.J.; Gilbert, G.N.; Woolgar, S.: Problem areas and research networks in science (1975) 0.03 
    0.025617985 = product of:
  0.1537079 = sum of:
    0.1537079 = weight(_text_:problem in 5771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1537079 = score(doc=5771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.750326 = fieldWeight in 5771, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5771)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  5. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.02 
    0.021527758 = product of:
  0.06458327 = sum of:
    0.038426977 = weight(_text_:problem in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038426977 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.026156299 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026156299 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  6. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.02 
    0.017437533 = product of:
  0.104625195 = sum of:
    0.104625195 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.104625195 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
  7. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.017437533 = product of:
  0.104625195 = sum of:
    0.104625195 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.104625195 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  8. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.02 
    0.017437533 = product of:
  0.104625195 = sum of:
    0.104625195 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.104625195 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
  9. Egghe, L.: ¬A noninformetric analysis of the relationship between citation age and journal productivity (2001) 0.02 
    0.01663937 = product of:
  0.09983622 = sum of:
    0.09983622 = weight(_text_:problem in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09983622 = score(doc=5685,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.48735106 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    A problem, raised by Wallace (JASIS, 37,136-145,1986), on the relation between the journal's median citation age and its number of articles is studied. Leaving open the problem as such, we give a statistical explanation of this relationship, when replacing "median" by "mean" in Wallace's problem. The cloud of points, found by Wallace, is explained in this sense that the points are scattered over the area in first quadrant, limited by a curve of the form y=1 + E/x**2 where E is a constant. This curve is obtained by using the Central Limit Theorem in statistics and, hence, has no intrinsic informetric foundation. The article closes with some reflections on explanations of regularities in informetrics, based on statistical, probabilistic or informetric results, or on a combination thereof
  10. Gomez, I.: Coping with the problem of subject classification diversity (1996) 0.02 
    0.015850322 = product of:
  0.09510193 = sum of:
    0.09510193 = weight(_text_:problem in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09510193 = score(doc=5074,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.46424055 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The delimination of a research field in bibliometric studies presents the problem of the diversity of subject classifications used in the sources of input and output data. Classification of documents according the thematic codes or keywords is the most accurate method, mainly used is specialized bibliographic or patent databases. Classification of journals in disciplines presents lower specifity, and some shortcomings as the change over time of both journals and disciplines and the increasing interdisciplinarity of research. Standardization of subject classifications emerges as an important point in bibliometric studies in order to allow international comparisons, although flexibility is needed to meet the needs of local studies
  11. Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998) 0.02 
    0.015412747 = product of:
  0.09247648 = sum of:
    0.09247648 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09247648 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:22:35
  12. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.015412747 = product of:
  0.09247648 = sum of:
    0.09247648 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09247648 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  13. Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994) 0.02 
    0.015257841 = product of:
  0.09154704 = sum of:
    0.09154704 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09154704 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, 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=5666)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
  14. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.02 
    0.015257841 = product of:
  0.09154704 = sum of:
    0.09154704 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09154704 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  15. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.02 
    0.015257841 = product of:
  0.09154704 = sum of:
    0.09154704 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09154704 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
  16. Aksnes, D.W.: When different persons have an identical author name : how frequent are homonyms? (2008) 0.01 
    0.01358599 = product of:
  0.08151594 = sum of:
    0.08151594 = weight(_text_:problem in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08151594 = score(doc=1617,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.39792046 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The phenomenon that different persons may have the same author name (homonymy) represents a major problem for publication analysis at individual levels and for retriving publications based on author names more generally. In such cases, all publications from the persons sharing the name will be collected in search results. This makes it difficult to provide a true picture of a researcher's publication output. The present study examines how frequent homonyms occur in a population of more than 30,000 individuals. The population represents the entire set of research personell in Norway. It is found that 14% of the persons share their author name with one or more other individuals. For the remaining 86% there is a one-to-one correspondence. Thus, for the large majority of persons, homonyms do not represent a problem. In the final part of the article, potential practical applications of these findings are given particular attention.
  17. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.01 
    0.013078149 = product of:
  0.0784689 = sum of:
    0.0784689 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0784689 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  18. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.01 
    0.013078149 = product of:
  0.0784689 = sum of:
    0.0784689 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0784689 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1690115 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  19. Marx, W.; Gramm, G.: Literaturflut - Informationslawine - Wissensexplosion : Wächst der Wissenschaft das Wissen über den Kopf? (1997) 0.01 
    0.0128089925 = product of:
  0.07685395 = sum of:
    0.07685395 = weight(_text_:problem in 1078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07685395 = score(doc=1078,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.375163 = fieldWeight in 1078, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1078)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Scientific information has stopped growing exponentially as in the last 300 years. Nevertheless, the number of scientific papers published yearly remains dramatic. Well orderd databases and sophisticated search systems allow scientists to find the needle in the haystack. A growing number of factual databases as well as more reviews compress and refine information. Not searching but controlling and working up information appear to become the most important problem in the future
  20. Parthey, H.: Strukturwandel der bibliometrischen Profile wissenschaftlicher Institutionen im 20. Jahrhundert (2006) 0.01 
    0.011321658 = product of:
  0.067929946 = sum of:
    0.067929946 = weight(_text_:problem in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067929946 = score(doc=27,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20485485 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04826377 = queryNorm
        0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Ein Wandel bibliometrischer Profile von Forschungsinstituten kann als besonderer Indikator für die Herausbildung neuartiger, insbesondere interdisziplinärer Forschungssituationen verstanden werden. Vergleichende Untersuchungen über bibliometrische Profile in der Wissenschaft gründen sich auf die Zählung von Publikationen, Autor- und Koautorschaft. Mit Publikationen bieten Forscher ihre Entwicklung von Problem und Methode, ihren Wissensgewinn dem wissenschaftlichen Meinungsstreit an. In diesem Zusammenhang können Zeitschriftenpublikationen an der Forschungsfront einer jeden Einzelwissenschaft - wegen des jeweiligen Standards bei der Abfassung von Zeitschriftenpublikationen - sowohl hinsichtlich ihrer Anzahl wie auch ihrer Koautorschaft und Zitationsrate verglichen werden. In unseren Untersuchungen gehen wir von folgender Definition aus: Bibliometrische Profile in der Wissenschaft sind Zusammenhänge zwischen der Anzahl von Publikationen, Zitation, Autor- und Koautorschaft, die durch funktionale Abhängigkeiten bestimmt sind. Entscheidendes Merkmal interdisziplinärer Forschungssituationen ist nach unserer Meinung nicht die Zusammensetzung der Gruppe nach Ausbildung und Kompetenz in verschiedenen Disziplinen, sondern das bei einzelnen Wissenschaftlern disziplinär fehlende Wissen zur Problembearbeitung und die daraus resultierende Suche nach Methodentransfer aus anderen Spezialgebieten und die danach gestaltete Koautorschaft. Der in den Untersuchungen benutzte Indikator für den Grad der Interdisziplinarität bringt zum Ausdruck, inwieweit die zur Bearbeitung eines Problems verwendeten Methoden in einem Wissensbereich begründet sind, der verschieden von dem Wissen ist, in dem das Problem formuliert wurde. Es ist anzunehmen, dass interdisziplinäre Arbeit durch die Zusammensetzung der Gruppe aus Vertretern verschiedener Disziplinen gefördert wird. Die Arbeit mit Methoden aus anderen Gebieten erzeugt sowohl Kooperationsbedürfnis als auch Kooperationsfähigkeit, und die Kooperation entwickelt Fähigkeiten und Interesse zur interdisziplinären Arbeit.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 147
  • d 13
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 157
  • el 3
  • m 2
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications