Search (142 results, page 1 of 8)

0.09204052 = product of:
  0.15340085 = sum of:
    0.0795246 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0795246 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.34493396 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
    0.023019718 = weight(_text_:of in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023019718 = score(doc=2213,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.35238793 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
    0.050856534 = product of:
      0.10171307 = sum of:
        0.10171307 = weight(_text_:mind in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10171307 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3900979 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.4, S.363-365 (J.W. Schneider): "Theories and methods for mapping scientific frontiers have existed for decades-especially within quantitative studies of science. This book investigates mapping scientific frontiers from the perspective of visual thinking and visual exploration (visual communication). The central theme is construction of visual-spatial representations that may convey insights into the dynamic structure of scientific frontiers. The author's previous book, Information Visualisation and Virtual Environments (1999), also concerns some of the ideas behind and possible benefits of visual communication. This new book takes a special focus an knowledge visualization, particularly in relation to science literature. The book is not a technical tutorial as the focus is an principles of visual communication and ways that may reveal the dynamics of scientific frontiers. The new approach to science mapping presented is the culmination of different approaches from several disciplines, such as philosophy of science, information retrieval, scientometrics, domain analysis, and information visualization. The book therefore addresses an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds and tries to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Chapter 1, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, introduces a range of examples that illustrate fundamental issues concerning visual communication in general and science mapping in particular. Chapter 2, Mapping the Universe, focuses an the basic principles of cartography for visual communication. Chapter 3, Mapping the Mind, turns the attention inward and explores the design of mind maps, maps that represent our thoughts, experience, and knowledge. Chapter 4, Enabling Techniques for Science Mapping, essentially outlines the author's basic approach to science mapping.
The title of Chapter 5, On the Shoulders of Giants, implies that knowledge of the structure of scientific frontiers in the immediate past holds the key to a fruitful exploration of people's intellectual assets. Chapter 6, Tracing Competing Paradigms explains how information visualization can draw upon the philosophical framework of paradigm shifts and thereby enable scientists to track the development of Competing paradigms. The final chapter, Tracking Latent Domain Knowledge, turns citation analysis upside down by looking at techniques that may reveal latent domain knowledge. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization is an excellent book and is highly recommended. The book convincingly outlines general theories conceming cartography, visual communication, and science mapping-especially how metaphors can make a "big picture"simple and useful. The author likewise Shows how the GSA framework is based not only an technical possibilities but indeed also an the visualization principles presented in the beginning chapters. Also, the author does a fine job of explaining why the mapping of scientific frontiers needs a combined effort from a diverse range of underlying disciplines, such as philosophy of science, sociology of science, scientometrics, domain analyses, information visualization, knowledge discovery, and data mining.

0.02533477 = product of:
  0.06333692 = sum of:
    0.018058153 = weight(_text_:of in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018058153 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.045278773 = product of:
      0.090557545 = sum of:
        0.090557545 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090557545 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx

0.020523002 = product of:
  0.051307507 = sum of:
    0.011286346 = weight(_text_:of in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011286346 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
    0.04002116 = product of:
      0.08004232 = sum of:
        0.08004232 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08004232 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.018588899 = product of:
  0.046472244 = sum of:
    0.022459546 = weight(_text_:of in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022459546 = score(doc=2763,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.024012696 = product of:
      0.048025392 = sum of:
        0.048025392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048025392 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.858-862

0.014453242 = product of:
  0.036133103 = sum of:
    0.019153563 = weight(_text_:of in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019153563 = score(doc=201,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.

Date

3. 1.2007 17:22:03

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1263-1274

0.013958423 = product of:
  0.034896057 = sum of:
    0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01791652 = score(doc=994,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.013017467 = product of:
  0.032543667 = sum of:
    0.011641062 = product of:
      0.05820531 = sum of:
        0.05820531 = weight(_text_:problem in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05820531 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.020902606 = weight(_text_:of in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020902606 = score(doc=198,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In a series of articles, Don Swanson explores the problem of associating two or more literatures that are logically, or substantively, related, but bibliographically noninteractive. He has called these implicit links among published literatures undicovered public knowledge. This article explores the fate of Swanson's ideas, using citation content analysis both to determine which authors have utilized Swanson's ideas and to examine the uses to which they have been put. The results suggest that while Swanson has received significant attention from the library and information science community, his ideas have not been widely cited in biomedical disciplines, and, when cited, only with rhetorically dismissive qualifications that detracts from their facticity. These results are interpreted as a failed instance of interdisciplinarity communication, and several explanations of this failure are discussed

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 48(1997) no.8, S.707-717

0.01211739 = product of:
  0.030293474 = sum of:
    0.009978054 = product of:
      0.04989027 = sum of:
        0.04989027 = weight(_text_:problem in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04989027 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 3095, 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=3095)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02031542 = score(doc=3095,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Web is a huge source of information, and one of the main problems facing users is finding documents which correspond to their requirements. Apart from the problem of thematic relevance, the documents retrieved by search engines do not always meet the users' expectations. The document may be too general, or conversely too specialized, or of a different type from what the user is looking for, and so forth. We think that adding metadata to pages can considerably improve the process of searching for information an the Web. This article presents a possible typology for Web sites and pages, as weIl as a method for propagating metadata values, based an the study of the Web graph and more specifically the method of cocitation in this graph.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.14, S.1282-1289

0.011483461 = product of:
  0.028708652 = sum of:
    0.011729115 = weight(_text_:of in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011729115 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.011038837 = product of:
  0.027597092 = sum of:
    0.016277399 = weight(_text_:of in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016277399 = score(doc=5171,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.011319693 = product of:
      0.022639386 = sum of:
        0.022639386 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022639386 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, 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=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568

0.010097824 = product of:
  0.02524456 = sum of:
    0.008315044 = product of:
      0.041575223 = sum of:
        0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041575223 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.016929517 = weight(_text_:of in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016929517 = score(doc=4279,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 39(2005), S.81-138

0.008852107 = product of:
  0.022130268 = sum of:
    0.007980651 = weight(_text_:of in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007980651 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.12216854 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.0056970897 = product of:
  0.028485449 = sum of:
    0.028485449 = weight(_text_:of in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028485449 = score(doc=37,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.43605784 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Describes the construction of improved informetric models of individual scientific and technological areas on the basis of individual co citation clusters. The developed methodology of replenishment of research front with accidently absent papers describes the model more completely. Proposes the simple method of cluster 'dynamization' for the study of evolution of research area. The transition under consideration from co citation clusters to lexical maps of papers and patents enables the monitoring of the relationshuip between R and D in a given technological area. Provides the example from modern chemical engineering of Pressure-Swing Adsorption

0.005473587 = product of:
  0.027367935 = sum of:
    0.027367935 = weight(_text_:of in 5076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027367935 = score(doc=5076,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 5076, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5076)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Analyses 6 indicators of the Science Citation Index Journals Citation Reports over a 19 year period: number of total citations, number of citations to the previous 2 years, number of source items, impact factor, immediacy index and cited half life. Proposes a box plot method to aggregate the values of each indicator so as to obtain at a glance portrayals of the JCR population from 1974 to 1993. This 'rereading' of the JCR, which presents the JCR product differently, makes it possible to shed new light on the large sub population of journals not at the top of the rankings

Issue

1. Description of the JCR journal population based on the number of citations received, number of source items, impact factor, immediacy index and cited half life

0.005473587 = product of:
  0.027367935 = sum of:
    0.027367935 = weight(_text_:of in 4416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027367935 = score(doc=4416,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 4416, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4416)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The citation characteristics of papers in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (especially for the years 1963-1965) have been examined as a means of studying the usage of astronomical literature in the UK. The decrease of usage with age has been investigated and the decay half-life determined. Particular attention has been paid to the immediacy effect, and to its possible variation in different sub-fields of astronomy. The citations have also been separated according to journal of origin. As a result of this study, a quantitative estimate has been made of the titles and backruns that are required to satisfy a given percentage of the demand for astronomical research literature in this country.

Source

Journal of documentation. 60(2004) no.6, S.597-600

0.0054174457 = product of:
  0.027087228 = sum of:
    0.027087228 = weight(_text_:of in 4129) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027087228 = score(doc=4129,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 4129, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4129)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Leydesdorff, in his 1998 paper 'Theories of citation?', addresses the history of citations and citation analysis, and the transformation of a reference mechanism into a purportedly quantitative measure of research impact/quality. Examines different facets of citations and citation analysis, and discusses the validity of citation analysis as a useful measure of research impact/quality

Footnote

Contribution to a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'

0.005293766 = product of:
  0.02646883 = sum of:
    0.02646883 = weight(_text_:of in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02646883 = score(doc=444,freq=44.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40518725 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
            44.0 = termFreq=44.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Scientists may seek to report a single definable body of research in more than one publication, that is, in repeated reports of the same work or in fractional reports, in order to disseminate their research as widely as possible in the scientific community. Up to now, however, it has not been examined whether this strategy of "multiple publication" in fact leads to greater reception of the research. In the present study, we investigate the influence of number of articles reporting the results of a single study on reception in the scientific community (total citation counts of an article on a single study). Our data set consists of 96 applicants for a research fellowship from the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF), an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. The applicants reported to us all articles that they had published within the framework of their doctoral research projects. On this single project, the applicants had published from 1 to 16 articles (M = 4; Mdn = 3). The results of a regression model with an interaction term show that the practice of multiple publication of research study results does in fact lead to greater reception of the research (higher total citation counts) in the scientific community. However, reception is dependent upon length of article: the longer the article, the more total citation counts increase with the number of articles. Thus, it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.8, S.1100-1107

0.00524542 = product of:
  0.0262271 = sum of:
    0.0262271 = weight(_text_:of in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0262271 = score(doc=1825,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions

Source

Journal of information science. 21(1995) no.2, S.75-85

0.0052405605 = product of:
  0.026202802 = sum of:
    0.026202802 = weight(_text_:of in 2809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026202802 = score(doc=2809,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 2809, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2809)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

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

0.0052405605 = product of:
  0.026202802 = sum of:
    0.026202802 = weight(_text_:of in 5130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026202802 = score(doc=5130,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 5130, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5130)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Citations support the communication of specialist knowledge by allowing authors and readers to make specific selections in several contexts at the same time. In the interactions between the social network of authors and the network of their reflexive communications, a sub textual code of communication with a distributed character has emerged. Citation analysis reflects on citation practices. Reference lists are aggregated in scientometric analysis using one of the available contexts to reduce the complexity: geometrical representations of dynamic operations are reflected in corresponding theories of citation. The specific contexts represented in the modern citation can be deconstructed from the perspective of the cultural evolution of scientific communication

Footnote

Lead paper in a thematic issue devoted to 'Theories of citation?'