-
Chen, C.: Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization (2003)
0.09
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.
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.08
0.08180751 = product of:
0.13634585 = sum of:
0.09940575 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09940575 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.43116745 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.016929517 = weight(_text_:of in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016929517 = score(doc=2590,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2590, 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=2590)
0.02001058 = product of:
0.04002116 = sum of:
0.04002116 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04002116 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.27-54
-
Pan, X.; Yan, E.; Hua, W.: Science communication and dissemination in different cultures : an analysis of the audience for TED videos in China and abroad (2016)
0.06
0.055836786 = product of:
0.13959196 = sum of:
0.12174669 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 2938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12174669 = score(doc=2938,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.52807015 = fieldWeight in 2938, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2938)
0.017845279 = weight(_text_:of in 2938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017845279 = score(doc=2938,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 2938, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2938)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Disseminated across the world in more than 100 languages and viewed over 1 billion times, TED Talks is a successful example of web-based science communication. This study investigates the impact of TED Talks videos on YouKu, a Chinese video portal, and YouTube using 6 measures of impact: number of views; likes; dislikes; comments; bookmarks; and shares. In particular, we study the relationship between the topicality and impact of these videos. Findings demonstrate that topics vary greatly in terms of their impact: Topics on entertainment and psychology/philosophy receive more views and likes, whereas design/art and astronomy/biology/oceanography attract fewer comments and bookmarks. Moreover, we identify several topical differences between YouKu and YouTube users. Topics on global issues and technology are more popular on YouKu, whereas topics on entertainment and psychology/philosophy are more popular on YouTube. By analyzing the popularity distribution of videos and the audience characteristics of YouKu, we find that women are more interested in topics on education and psychology/philosophy, whereas men favor topics on technology and astronomy/biology/oceanography.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.6, S.1473-1486
-
Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013)
0.05
0.05307898 = product of:
0.2653949 = sum of:
0.2653949 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.2653949 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.35416332 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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.
-
Cronin, B.; Shaw, D.; LaBarre, K.: ¬A cast of thousands : Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy (2003)
0.05
0.049356025 = product of:
0.123390056 = sum of:
0.098406665 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 1731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098406665 = score(doc=1731,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.426834 = fieldWeight in 1731, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1731)
0.024983391 = weight(_text_:of in 1731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024983391 = score(doc=1731,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 1731, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1731)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- We chronicle the use of acknowledgments in 20th-century scholarship by analyzing and classifying more than 4,500 specimens covering a 100-year period. Our results show that the intensity of acknowledgment varies by discipline, reflecting differences in prevailing sociocognitive structures and work practices. We demonstrate that the acknowledgment has gradually established itself as a constitutive element of academic writing, one that provides a revealing insight into the nature and extent of subauthorship collaboration. Complementary data an rates of coauthorship are also presented to highlight the growing importance of collaboration and the increasing division of labor in contemporary research and scholarship.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.9, S.855-871
-
Tsay, M.-y.; Shu, Z.-y.: Journal bibliometric analysis : a case study on the Journal of Documentation (2011)
0.04
0.03714527 = product of:
0.09286317 = sum of:
0.070290476 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.070290476 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
0.022572692 = weight(_text_:of in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022572692 = score(doc=294,freq=32.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
32.0 = termFreq=32.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This study aims to explore the journal bibliometric characteristics of the Journal of Documentation (JOD) and the subject relationship with other disciplines by citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The citation data were drawn from references of each article of JOD during 1998 and 2008. Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, Library of Congress Subject Heading, retrieved from the WorldCat and LISA database were used to identify the main class, subclass and subject of cited journals and books. Findings - The results of this study revealed that journal articles are the most cited document, followed by books and book chapters, electronic resources, and conference proceedings, respectively. The three main classes of cited journals in JOD papers are library science, science, and social sciences. The three subclasses of non-LIS journals that were highly cited in JOD papers are Science, "Mathematics. Computer science", and "Industries. Land use. Labor". The three highly cited subjects of library and information science journals encompass searching, information work, and online information retrieval. The most cited main class of books in JOD papers is library and information science, followed by social sciences, science, "Philosophy. Psychology. Religion." The three highly cited subclasses of books in JOD papers are "Books (General). Writing. Paleography. Book industries and trade. Libraries. Bibliography," "Philology and linguistics," and Science, and the most cited subject of books is information storage and retrieval systems. Originality/value - Results for the present research found that information science, as represented by JOD, is a developing discipline with an expanding literature relating to multiple subject areas.
- Object
- Journal of documentation
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 67(2011) no.5, S.806-822
-
Zhou, H.; Dong, K.; Xia, Y.: Knowledge inheritance in disciplines : quantifying the successive and distant reuse of references (2023)
0.04
0.03714527 = product of:
0.09286317 = sum of:
0.070290476 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.070290476 = score(doc=1192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
0.022572692 = weight(_text_:of in 1192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022572692 = score(doc=1192,freq=32.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 1192, product of:
5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
32.0 = termFreq=32.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1192)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- How the knowledge base of disciplines grows, renews, and decays informs their distinct characteristics and epistemology. Here we track the evolution of knowledge bases of 19 disciplines for over 45 years. We introduce the notation of knowledge inheritance as the overlap in the set of references between years. We discuss two modes of knowledge inheritance of disciplines-successive and distant. To quantify the status and propensity of knowledge inheritance for disciplines, we propose two indicators: one descriptively describes knowledge base evolution, and one estimates the propensity of knowledge inheritance. When observing the continuity in knowledge bases for disciplines, we show distinct patterns for STEM and SS&H disciplines: the former inherits knowledge bases more successively, yet the latter inherits significantly from distant knowledge bases. We further discover stagnation or revival in knowledge base evolution where older knowledge base ceases to decay after 10 years (e.g., Physics and Mathematics) and are increasingly reused (e.g., Philosophy). Regarding the propensity of inheriting prior knowledge bases, we observe unanimous rises in both successive and distant knowledge inheritance. We show that knowledge inheritance could reveal disciplinary characteristics regarding the trajectory of knowledge base evolution and interesting insights into the metabolism and maturity of scholarly communication.
- Content
- Beitrag in: JASIST special issue on 'Who tweets scientific publications? A large-scale study of tweeting audiences in all areas of research'. Vgl.: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24833.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.13, S.1515-1531
-
White, H.D.; Boell, S.K.; Yu, H.; Davis, M.; Wilson, C.S.; Cole, F.T.H.: Libcitations : a measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences (2009)
0.04
0.035935603 = product of:
0.089839004 = sum of:
0.070290476 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.070290476 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
0.019548526 = weight(_text_:of in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019548526 = score(doc=2846,freq=24.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1083-1096
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.: Assessing the citation impact of books : the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus (2011)
0.03
0.034088366 = product of:
0.08522091 = sum of:
0.070290476 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.070290476 = score(doc=4920,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
0.014930432 = weight(_text_:of in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014930432 = score(doc=4920,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Citation indictors are increasingly used in some subject areas to support peer review in the evaluation of researchers and departments. Nevertheless, traditional journal-based citation indexes may be inadequate for the citation impact assessment of book-based disciplines. This article examines whether online citations from Google Books and Google Scholar can provide alternative sources of citation evidence. To investigate this, we compared the citation counts to 1,000 books submitted to the 2008 U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) from Google Books and Google Scholar with Scopus citations across seven book-based disciplines (archaeology; law; politics and international studies; philosophy; sociology; history; and communication, cultural, and media studies). Google Books and Google Scholar citations to books were 1.4 and 3.2 times more common than were Scopus citations, and their medians were more than twice and three times as high as were Scopus median citations, respectively. This large number of citations is evidence that in book-oriented disciplines in the social sciences, arts, and humanities, online book citations may be sufficiently numerous to support peer review for research evaluation, at least in the United Kingdom.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2147-2164
-
Wang, Q.: ¬A bibliometric model for identifying emerging research topics (2018)
0.03
0.03095989 = product of:
0.07739972 = sum of:
0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02345823 = score(doc=4042,freq=24.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
0.053941496 = product of:
0.10788299 = sum of:
0.10788299 = weight(_text_:mind in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10788299 = score(doc=4042,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.41376126 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Detecting emerging research topics is essential, not only for research agencies but also for individual researchers. Previous studies have created various bibliographic indicators for the identification of emerging research topics. However, as indicated by Rotolo et al. (Research Policy 44, 1827-1843, 2015), the most serious problems are the lack of an acknowledged definition of emergence and incomplete elaboration of the linkages between the definitions that are used and the indicators that are created. With these issues in mind, this study first adjusts the definition of an emerging technology that Rotolo et al. (2015) have proposed to accommodate the analysis. Next, a set of criteria for the identification of emerging topics is proposed according to the adjusted definition and attributes of emergence. Using two sets of parameter values, several emerging research topics are identified. Finally, evaluation tests are conducted by demonstration of the proposed approach and comparison with previous studies. The strength of the present methodology lies in the fact that it is fully transparent, straightforward, and flexible.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.2, S.290-304
-
Camacho-Miñano, M.-del-Mar; Núñez-Nickel, M.: ¬The multilayered nature of reference selection (2009)
0.03
0.030249493 = product of:
0.05041582 = sum of:
0.009978054 = product of:
0.04989027 = sum of:
0.04989027 = weight(_text_:problem in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04989027 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02345823 = score(doc=2751,freq=24.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 2751, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2751)
0.016979538 = product of:
0.033959076 = sum of:
0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 2751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033959076 = score(doc=2751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.754-777
-
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
0.030249493 = product of:
0.05041582 = sum of:
0.009978054 = product of:
0.04989027 = sum of:
0.04989027 = weight(_text_:problem in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04989027 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02345823 = score(doc=4190,freq=24.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
0.016979538 = product of:
0.033959076 = sum of:
0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033959076 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.257-269
-
Cabanac, G.; Hartley, J.: Issues of work-life balance among JASIST authors and editors (2013)
0.03
0.030142331 = product of:
0.07535583 = sum of:
0.021414334 = weight(_text_:of in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021414334 = score(doc=996,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
0.053941496 = product of:
0.10788299 = sum of:
0.10788299 = weight(_text_:mind in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10788299 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.41376126 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Many dedicated scientists reject the concept of maintaining a "work-life balance." They argue that work is actually a huge part of life. In the mind-set of these scientists, weekdays and weekends are equally appropriate for working on their research. Although we all have encountered such people, we may wonder how widespread this condition is with other scientists in our field. This brief communication probes work-life balance issues among JASIST authors and editors. We collected and examined the publication histories for 1,533 of the 2,402 articles published in JASIST between 2001 and 2012. Although there is no rush to submit, revise, or accept papers, we found that 11% of these events happened during weekends and that this trend has been increasing since 2005. Our findings suggest that working during the weekend may be one of the ways that scientists cope with the highly demanding era of "publish or perish." We hope that our findings will raise an awareness of the steady increases in work among scientists before it affects our work-life balance even more.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.2182-2186
-
Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011)
0.03
0.026924467 = product of:
0.04487411 = sum of:
0.009978054 = product of:
0.04989027 = sum of:
0.04989027 = weight(_text_:problem in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04989027 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01791652 = score(doc=4192,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
0.016979538 = product of:
0.033959076 = sum of:
0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033959076 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.284-294
-
Elkiss, A.; Shen, S.; Fader, A.; Erkan, G.; States, D.; Radev, D.: Blind men and elephants : what do citation summaries tell us about a research article? (2008)
0.03
0.0261192 = product of:
0.065298 = sum of:
0.02034675 = weight(_text_:of in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02034675 = score(doc=1339,freq=26.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
0.04495125 = product of:
0.0899025 = sum of:
0.0899025 = weight(_text_:mind in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0899025 = score(doc=1339,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.34480107 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The old Asian legend about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind when looking at how different authors of scientific papers describe a piece of related prior work. It turns out that different citations to the same paper often focus on different aspects of that paper and that neither provides a full description of its full set of contributions. In this article, we will describe our investigation of this phenomenon. We studied citation summaries in the context of research papers in the biomedical domain. A citation summary is the set of citing sentences for a given article and can be used as a surrogate for the actual article in a variety of scenarios. It contains information that was deemed by peers to be important. Our study shows that citation summaries overlap to some extent with the abstracts of the papers and that they also differ from them in that they focus on different aspects of these papers than do the abstracts. In addition to this, co-cited articles (which are pairs of articles cited by another article) tend to be similar. We show results based on a lexical similarity metric called cohesion to justify our claims.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.1, S.51-62
-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.03
0.02533477 = product of:
0.06333692 = sum of:
0.018058153 = weight(_text_:of in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018058153 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
0.045278773 = product of:
0.090557545 = sum of:
0.090557545 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.090557545 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.03
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
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.02
0.0247859 = product of:
0.06196475 = sum of:
0.022345824 = weight(_text_:of in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022345824 = score(doc=5666,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.039618924 = product of:
0.07923785 = sum of:
0.07923785 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07923785 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.02
0.022167925 = product of:
0.05541981 = sum of:
0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015800884 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.039618924 = product of:
0.07923785 = sum of:
0.07923785 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07923785 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.368-375
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990)
0.02
0.022167925 = product of:
0.05541981 = sum of:
0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015800884 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.039618924 = product of:
0.07923785 = sum of:
0.07923785 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07923785 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:55
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.5, S.376-386
