-
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
0.021951389 = product of:
0.036585648 = sum of:
0.0066520358 = product of:
0.033260178 = sum of:
0.033260178 = weight(_text_:problem in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033260178 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.018613918 = weight(_text_:of in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018613918 = score(doc=4051,freq=34.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.28494355 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
34.0 = termFreq=34.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
0.011319693 = product of:
0.022639386 = sum of:
0.022639386 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022639386 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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
- Footnote
- Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575
-
Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006)
0.02
0.021718858 = product of:
0.05429714 = sum of:
0.030284444 = weight(_text_:of in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030284444 = score(doc=5275,freq=40.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.46359703 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
40.0 = termFreq=40.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
0.024012696 = product of:
0.048025392 = sum of:
0.048025392 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048025392 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, 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=5275)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In this article we present an empirical approach to the study of the statistical properties of bibliometric indicators on a very relevant but not simply available aggregation level: the research group. We focus on the distribution functions of a coherent set of indicators that are used frequently in the analysis of research performance. In this sense, the coherent set of indicators acts as a measuring instrument. Better insight into the statistical properties of a measuring instrument is necessary to enable assessment of the instrument itself. The most basic distribution in bibliometric analysis is the distribution of citations over publications, and this distribution is very skewed. Nevertheless, we clearly observe the working of the central limit theorem and find that at the level of research groups the distribution functions of the main indicators, particularly the journal- normalized and the field-normalized indicators, approach normal distributions. The results of our study underline the importance of the idea of group oeuvre, that is, the role of sets of related publications as a unit of analysis.
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 16:20:22
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.408-430
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.02
0.021245057 = product of:
0.05311264 = sum of:
0.019153563 = weight(_text_:of in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019153563 = score(doc=1239,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.033959076 = product of:
0.06791815 = sum of:
0.06791815 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06791815 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867
-
Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998)
0.02
0.020523002 = product of:
0.051307507 = sum of:
0.011286346 = weight(_text_:of in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011286346 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
0.04002116 = product of:
0.08004232 = sum of:
0.08004232 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08004232 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:22:35
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
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
-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.02
0.019001076 = product of:
0.04750269 = sum of:
0.013543615 = weight(_text_:of in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013543615 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.033959076 = product of:
0.06791815 = sum of:
0.06791815 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06791815 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
-
Mommoh, O.M.: Subject analysis of post-graduate theses in library, archival and information science at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (1995/96)
0.02
0.018611232 = product of:
0.04652808 = sum of:
0.023888692 = weight(_text_:of in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023888692 = score(doc=673,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
0.022639386 = product of:
0.045278773 = sum of:
0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045278773 = score(doc=673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a bibliometric study of 111 theses accepted by the Department of Library and Information Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria, between 1977 and 1992. The analysis was based on year, type and degree awarded, subject, type of library and geographical area. Concludes that the highest number of submissions was 1991, when 108 MLS theses (97,29%) and 3 PhD theses (2,71%) were accepted. Libraries and readers was the most concetrated subject while the academic library was the most discussed type of library
- Source
- Library focus. 13/14(1995/96), S.22-25
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.02
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
-
Falkingham, L.T.; Reeves, R.: Context analysis : a technique for analysing research in a field, applied to literature on the management of R&D at the section level (1998)
0.02
0.017917141 = product of:
0.044792853 = sum of:
0.024983391 = weight(_text_:of in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024983391 = score(doc=3689,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 3689, 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=3689)
0.019809462 = product of:
0.039618924 = sum of:
0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039618924 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Context analysis is a new method for appraising a body of publications. the process consists of creating a database of attributes assigned to each paper by the reviewer and then looking for interesting relationships in the data. Assigning the attributes requires an understanding of the subject matter of the papers. Presents findings about one particular research field, Management of R&D at the Section Level. The findings support the view that this body of academic publications does not meet the needs of practitioner R&D managers. Discusses practical aspects of how to apply the method in other fields
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:18:46
-
Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995)
0.02
0.017902408 = product of:
0.044756018 = sum of:
0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02211663 = score(doc=5092,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
0.022639386 = product of:
0.045278773 = sum of:
0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045278773 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science
- Source
- Journal of information; communication; and library science. 2(1995) no.2, S.20-28
-
Chongde, W.; Zhe, W.: Evaluation of the models for Bradford's law (1998)
0.02
0.017902408 = product of:
0.044756018 = sum of:
0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02211663 = score(doc=3688,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 3688, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3688)
0.022639386 = product of:
0.045278773 = sum of:
0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045278773 = score(doc=3688,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3688, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3688)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Conducts a goodness of fit test for 2 models for Bradford's law given by Egghe and Smolkov. Concludes that Smolkov's model is of comparatively higher accuracy. Finally points out the necessity of carrying out statistical tests for comparisons more frequently for the new models of Bradford's law in the development of the law in order to get the best model
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:12:28
-
Burrell, Q.L.: Predicting future citation behavior (2003)
0.02
0.017404316 = product of:
0.043510787 = sum of:
0.023701325 = weight(_text_:of in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023701325 = score(doc=3837,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
0.019809462 = product of:
0.039618924 = sum of:
0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039618924 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In this article we further develop the theory for a stochastic model for the citation process in the presence of obsolescence to predict the future citation pattern of individual papers in a collection. More precisely, we investigate the conditional distribution-and its mean- of the number of citations to a paper after time t, given the number of citations it has received up to time t. In an important parametric case it is shown that the expected number of future citations is a linear function of the current number, this being interpretable as an example of a success-breeds-success phenomenon.
- Date
- 29. 3.2003 19:22:48
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.5, S.372-378
-
Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011)
0.02
0.017404316 = product of:
0.043510787 = sum of:
0.023701325 = weight(_text_:of in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023701325 = score(doc=4187,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
0.019809462 = product of:
0.039618924 = sum of:
0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039618924 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:53:00
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.230-235
-
Vieira, E.S.; Cabral, J.A.S.; Gomes, J.A.N.F.: Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions (2014)
0.02
0.017404316 = product of:
0.043510787 = sum of:
0.023701325 = weight(_text_:of in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023701325 = score(doc=1221,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1221, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1221)
0.019809462 = product of:
0.039618924 = sum of:
0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039618924 = score(doc=1221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1221, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1221)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- A model based on a set of bibliometric indicators is proposed for the prediction of the ranking of applicants to an academic position as produced by a committee of peers. The results show that a very small number of indicators may lead to a robust prediction of about 75% of the cases. We start with 12 indicators to build a few composite indicators by factor analysis. Following a discrete choice model, we arrive at 3 comparatively good predicative models. We conclude that these models have a surprisingly good predictive power and may help peers in their selection process.
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 18:22:21
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.3, S.560-577
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996)
0.02
0.017282655 = product of:
0.04320664 = sum of:
0.0262271 = weight(_text_:of in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0262271 = score(doc=7659,freq=30.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.4014868 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
0.016979538 = product of:
0.033959076 = sum of:
0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033959076 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
-
Gomez, I.: Coping with the problem of subject classification diversity (1996)
0.02
0.0170663 = product of:
0.04266575 = sum of:
0.01646295 = product of:
0.08231475 = sum of:
0.08231475 = weight(_text_:problem in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08231475 = score(doc=5074,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
0.026202802 = weight(_text_:of in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026202802 = score(doc=5074,freq=22.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 5074, 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=5074)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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
-
Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014)
0.02
0.017033309 = product of:
0.04258327 = sum of:
0.022572692 = weight(_text_:of in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022572692 = score(doc=1291,freq=32.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
0.02001058 = product of:
0.04002116 = sum of:
0.04002116 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04002116 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
- Object
- Web of Science
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1244-1256
-
Neth, M.: Citation analysis and the Web (1998)
0.02
0.016862115 = product of:
0.04215529 = sum of:
0.022345824 = weight(_text_:of in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022345824 = score(doc=108,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
0.019809462 = product of:
0.039618924 = sum of:
0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039618924 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Citation analysis has long been used by librarians as an important tool of collection development and the advent of Internet technology and especially the WWW adds a new facet to the role played by citation analysis. One of the reasons why librarians create WWW homepages is to provide users with further sources of interest or reference and to do this libraries include links from their own homepages to other information sources. Reports current research on the analysis of WWW pages as an introduction to an examination of the homepages of 25 art libraries to determine what sites are most often included. The types of linked sites are analyzed based on 3 criteria: location, focus and evidence that the link was evaluated before the connection was establisheds
- Date
- 10. 1.1999 16:22:37
-
Avramescu, A.: Teoria difuziei informatiei stiintifice (1997)
0.02
0.016862115 = product of:
0.04215529 = sum of:
0.022345824 = weight(_text_:of in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022345824 = score(doc=3030,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
0.019809462 = product of:
0.039618924 = sum of:
0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039618924 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- The theory of diffusion can be successfully applied to scientific information dissemination by identifying space with a series of successive authors, and potential (temperature) with the interest of new authors towards earlier published papers, measured by the number of citations. As the total number of citation equals the number of references, the conservation law is fulfilled and Fourier's parabolic differential equation can be applied
- Content
- Contribution to the 30th anniversary issue of 'Probleme de Informare si Documentare' - Reprint of an article which originally appeared in 'Probleme de Informare si Documentare 13(1978) no.2, S.43-64'
- Date
- 22. 2.1999 16:16:11
-
Kumar, S.: Co-authorship networks : a review of the literature (2015)
0.02
0.016558254 = product of:
0.041395634 = sum of:
0.024416098 = weight(_text_:of in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024416098 = score(doc=2586,freq=26.0), product of:
0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
0.016979538 = product of:
0.033959076 = sum of:
0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033959076 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04177434 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2586, 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=2586)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to attempt to provide a review of the growing literature on co-authorship networks and the research gaps that may be investigated for future studies in this field. Design/methodology/approach - The existing literature on co-authorship networks was identified, evaluated and interpreted. Narrative review style was followed. Findings - Co-authorship, a proxy of research collaboration, is a key mechanism that links different sets of talent to produce a research output. Co-authorship could also be seen from the perspective of social networks. An in-depth analysis of such knowledge networks provides an opportunity to investigate its structure. Patterns of these relationships could reveal, for example, the mechanism that shapes our scientific community. The study provides a review of the expanding literature on co-authorship networks. Originality/value - This is one of the first comprehensive reviews of network-based studies on co-authorship. The field is fast evolving, opening new gaps for potential research. The study identifies some of these gaps.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Source
- Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.1, S.55-73
