Search (43 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Gorraiz, J.: "Web of Science" versus "Scopus" oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken (2006) 0.02 
    0.017826905 = product of:
  0.053480715 = sum of:
    0.042966347 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042966347 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.27216077 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
    0.010514366 = product of:
      0.0315431 = sum of:
        0.0315431 = weight(_text_:29 in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0315431 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".
    Date
    4. 6.2006 17:36:29
  2. Kurtz, M.J.; Eichhorn, G.; Accomazzi, A.; Grant, C.; Demleitner, M.; Henneken, E.; Murray, S.S.: ¬The effect of use and access on citations (2005) 0.01 
    0.0145474505 = product of:
  0.04364235 = sum of:
    0.029623196 = weight(_text_:internet in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029623196 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
    0.014019156 = product of:
      0.042057466 = sum of:
        0.042057466 = weight(_text_:29 in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042057466 = score(doc=1064,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    It has been shown (Lawrence, S. (2001). Online or invisible? Nature, 411, 521) that journal articles which have been posted without charge on the internet are more heavily cited than those which have not been. Using data from the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ads.harvard.edu) and from the ArXiv e-print archive at Cornell University (arXiv.org) we examine the causes of this effect.
    Date
    27.12.2007 17:16:29
  3. Davis, P.M.; Cohen, S.A.: ¬The effect of the Web on undergraduate citation behavior 1996-1999 (2001) 0.01 
    0.013978171 = product of:
  0.041934513 = sum of:
    0.031420145 = weight(_text_:internet in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031420145 = score(doc=5768,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.27677247 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
    0.010514366 = product of:
      0.0315431 = sum of:
        0.0315431 = weight(_text_:29 in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0315431 = score(doc=5768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    A citation analysis of undergraduate term papers in microeconomics revealed a significant decrease in the frequency of scholarly resources cited between 1996 and 1999. Book citations decreased from 30% to 19%, newspaper citations increased from 7% to 19%, and Web citations increased from 9% to 21%. Web citations checked in 2000 revealed that only 18% of URLs cited in 1996 led to the correct Internet document. For 1999 bibliographies, only 55% of URLs led to the correct document. The authors recommend (1) setting stricter guidelines for acceptable citations in course assignments; (2) creating and maintaining scholarly portals for authoritative Web sites with a commitment to long-term access; and (3) continuing to instruct students how to critically evaluate resources
    Date
    29. 9.2001 14:01:09
    Theme
    Internet
  4. Stock, W.G.: Publikation und Zitat : Die problematische Basis empirischer Wissenschaftsforschung (2001) 0.01 
    0.009092158 = product of:
  0.027276471 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
    0.008761973 = product of:
      0.026285918 = sum of:
        0.026285918 = weight(_text_:29 in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026285918 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Die empirische Wissenschaftsforschung arbeitet bei den Indikatoren wissenschaftlicher Leistung und wissenschaftlicher Wirkung mit Publikations- und Zitationsraten. Die vorliegende Arbeit befaßt sich mit dabei auftretenden methodischen Problemen. Was ist überhaupt eine Publikation? Was heißt Zitation? Zentral ist auch die Zählbasis, d.h. die Einheitenbildung: Was ist 1 Publikation? und: Was ist 1 Zitation? Bei Printpublikationen gibt es eine Reihe von beachtenswerten Faktoren (u.a. Mehrautorenwerke, Gewichtungsfaktoren wie den Impact Factor, Dokumenttypen). Bei elektronischen Publikationen im Internet mit ihrem dynamischen Charakter ist die Einheitenbildung noch weitaus problematischer. Zitationen, verstanden als zitierte Publikationen, werfen alle methodischen Probleme der Publikationseinheiten auf, hinzu kommen weitere, spezifische Probleme. Lösungsmöglichkeiten im syntaktischen Bereich (Relativierung auf Textseiten oder Zeichen) ändern am grundlegenden Problem nur wenig, Lösungsversuche im semantischen Bereich (etwa im Rahmen der semantischen Informationstheorie) sind im Rahmen der Publikations- und Zitationsanalysen nicht durchführbar und verweisen sowohl auf themenanalytische Methoden als auch auf die Wissenschaftstheorie. Mit diesem Working Paper wollen wir vor allem auf offene Probleme hinweisen; "endgültige" Lösungen wird der Leser nicht finden, wohl aber Lösungsvorschläge, die meist durchaus noch diskussionswürdig sind. In der Informationswissenschaft wie in der Wissenschaftsforschung sind wir bisher viel zu sicher davon ausgegangen, daß wir wissen, was Publikationen und Zitationen sind
    Series
    Kölner Arbeitspapiere zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft; Bd.29
  5. Cronin, B.: Bibliometrics and beyond : some thoughts on web-based citation analysis (2001) 0.01 
    0.008640099 = product of:
  0.051840592 = sum of:
    0.051840592 = weight(_text_:internet in 3890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051840592 = score(doc=3890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.45665127 = fieldWeight in 3890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3890)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Theme
    Internet
  6. Barnett, G.A.; Fink, E.L.: Impact of the internet and scholar age distribution on academic citation age (2008) 0.01 
    0.008279935 = product of:
  0.04967961 = sum of:
    0.04967961 = weight(_text_:internet in 1376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04967961 = score(doc=1376,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.43761572 = fieldWeight in 1376, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1376)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    This article examines the impact of the Internet and the age distribution of research scholars on academic citation age with a mathematical model proposed by Barnett, Fink, and Debus (1989) and a revised model that incorporates information about the online environment and scholar age distribution. The modified model fits the data well, accounting for 99.6% of the variance for science citations and 99.8% for social science citations. The Internet's impact on the aging process of academic citations has been very small, accounting for only 0.1% for the social sciences and 0.8% for the sciences. Rather than resulting in the use of more recent citations, the Internet appears to have lengthened the average life of academic citations by 6 to 8 months. The aging of scholars seems to have a greater impact, accounting for 2.8% of the variance for the sciences and 0.9% for the social sciences. However, because the diffusion of the Internet and the aging of the professoriate are correlated over this time period, differentiating their effects is somewhat problematic.
    Theme
    Internet
  7. Stock, W.G.: Journal Citation Reports : Ein Impact Factor für Bibliotheken, Verlage und Autoren? (2001) 0.01 
    0.005967549 = product of:
  0.035805292 = sum of:
    0.035805292 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035805292 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578712 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.22680065 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Gibt es objektive Kriterien für die Bestellung und Abbestellung wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften? Wie lange sollte eine Bibliothek Periodikabestände benutzernah aufstellen? Kann ein Verlag -außer via Verkaufszahlen - auf Kriterien des Erfolgs seiner Zeitschriften zurückgreifen? Hat ein Autor eine Entscheidungsgrundlage, welcher Zeitschrift er seinen Artikel anbietet? Ist die Forschungsaktivität eines Instituts oder eines Wissenschaftlers über den Impact derjenigen Zeitschriftentitel zu evaluieren, die die Forschungsergebnisse drucken? Können die 'Journal Citation Reports (JCR) "des "Institute for Scientific Information" bei der Klärung solcher Fragen helfen? Sind die JCR ein nützliches oder gar ein notwendiges Hilfsmittel für Bibliotheken, für Verlage, für Wissenschaftsmanager und für wissenschaftliche Autoren? Die 'Journal Citation Reports" geben im Jahresrhythmus informetrische Kennzahlen wie die Zitationsrate, den Impact Factor, den Immediacy Index, die Halbwertszeit für eine Auswahl wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften an. Zusätzlich berichten sie darüber, weiche Zeitschriften weiche anderen Zeitschriften zitieren bzw. von diesen zitiert werden, so dass "Soziogramme" wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenkommunikation entstehen. Wir wollen am Beispiel des aktuellen Jahrgangs ( 1999) die JCR detailliert beschreiben, die Auswahlkriterien der Zeitschriften beleuchten, die verwendeten informetrischen Kennwerte - vor allem den Impact Factor - kritisch hinterfragen, um danach die Einsatzgebiete bei Bibliotheken, in der Wissenschaftsevaluation, bei Verlagen und bei Autoren zu diskutieren. Das Fazit sei vorweggenommen: Die JCR sind ein nicht umgehbares Hilfsmittel für die fokussierten Anwendungsbereiche. Sie sind mitnichten frei von Problemen. Wir schließen daher mit einigen Verbesserungsvorschlägen
  8. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.00 
    0.0046310155 = product of:
  0.027786091 = sum of:
    0.027786091 = product of:
      0.08335827 = sum of:
        0.08335827 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08335827 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  9. Thelwall, M.: Extracting macroscopic information from Web links (2001) 0.00 
    0.0043639094 = product of:
  0.026183454 = sum of:
    0.026183454 = weight(_text_:internet in 6851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026183454 = score(doc=6851,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.23064373 = fieldWeight in 6851, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6851)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Much has been written about the potential and pitfalls of macroscopic Web-based link analysis, yet there have been no studies that have provided clear statistical evidence that any of the proposed calculations can produce results over large areas of the Web that correlate with phenomena external to the Internet. This article attempts to provide such evidence through an evaluation of Ingwersen's (1998) proposed external Web Impact Factor (WIF) for the original use of the Web: the interlinking of academic research. In particular, it studies the case of the relationship between academic hyperlinks and research activity for universities in Britain, a country chosen for its variety of institutions and the existence of an official government rating exercise for research. After reviewing the numerous reasons why link counts may be unreliable, it demonstrates that four different WIFs do, in fact, correlate with the conventional academic research measures. The WIF delivering the greatest correlation with research rankings was the ratio of Web pages with links pointing at research-based pages to faculty numbers. The scarcity of links to electronic academic papers in the data set suggests that, in contrast to citation analysis, this WIF is measuring the reputations of universities and their scholars, rather than the quality of their publications
    Theme
    Internet
  10. Feitelson, D.G.; Yovel, U.: Predictive ranking of computer scientists using CiteSeer data (2004) 0.00 
    0.0043200497 = product of:
  0.025920296 = sum of:
    0.025920296 = weight(_text_:internet in 1259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025920296 = score(doc=1259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 1259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1259)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The increasing availability of digital libraries with cross-citation data on the Internet enables new studies in bibliometrics. The paper focuses on the list of 10.000 top-cited authors in computer science available as part of CiteSeer. Using data from several consecutive lists a model of how authors accrue citations with time is constructed. By comparing the rate at which individual authors accrue citations with the average rate, predictions are made of how their ranking in the list will change in the future.
  11. Brody, T.; Harnad, S.; Carr, L.: Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact (2006) 0.00 
    0.0043200497 = product of:
  0.025920296 = sum of:
    0.025920296 = weight(_text_:internet in 165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025920296 = score(doc=165,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 165, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=165)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Theme
    Internet
  12. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.00 
    0.004093278 = product of:
  0.024559667 = sum of:
    0.024559667 = product of:
      0.073679 = sum of:
        0.073679 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073679 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  13. Remler, A.: Lässt sich wissenschaftliche Leistung messen? : Wer zitiert wird, liegt vorne - in den USA berechnet man Forschungsleistung nach einem Zitat-Index (2000) 0.00 
    0.0040889205 = product of:
  0.024533523 = sum of:
    0.024533523 = product of:
      0.07360057 = sum of:
        0.07360057 = weight(_text_:29 in 5392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07360057 = score(doc=5392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 5392, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5392)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    30.10.2000 17:47:29
  14. Prime-Claverie, C.; Beigbeder, M.; Lafouge, T.: Transposition of the cocitation method with a view to classifying Web pages (2004) 0.00 
    0.0037028994 = product of:
  0.022217397 = sum of:
    0.022217397 = weight(_text_:internet in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022217397 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.1957077 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Theme
    Internet
  15. Vaughan, L.; Shaw, D.: Web citation data for impact assessment : a comparison of four science disciplines (2005) 0.00 
    0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Theme
    Internet
  16. Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004) 0.00 
    0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Theme
    Internet
  17. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.00 
    0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Theme
    Internet
  18. Aström, F.: Changes in the LIS research front : time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004 (2007) 0.00 
    0.00308575 = product of:
  0.018514499 = sum of:
    0.018514499 = weight(_text_:internet in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018514499 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.16308975 = fieldWeight in 329, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=329)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Based on articles published in 1990-2004 in 21 library and information science (LIS) journals, a set of cocitation analyses was performed to study changes in research fronts over the last 15 years, where LIS is at now, and to discuss where it is heading. To study research fronts, here defined as current and influential cocited articles, a citations among documents methodology was applied; and to study changes, the analyses were time-sliced into three 5-year periods. The results show a stable structure of two distinct research fields: informetrics and information seeking and retrieval (ISR). However, experimental retrieval research and user oriented research have merged into one ISR field; and IR and informetrics also show signs of coming closer together, sharing research interests and methodologies, making informetrics research more visible in mainstream LIS research. Furthermore, the focus on the Internet, both in ISR research and in informetrics-where webometrics quickly has become a dominating research area-is an important change. The future is discussed in terms of LIS dependency on technology, how integration of research areas as well as technical systems can be expected to continue to characterize LIS research, and how webometrics will continue to develop and find applications.
  19. Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002) 0.00 
    0.0028943846 = product of:
  0.017366307 = sum of:
    0.017366307 = product of:
      0.05209892 = sum of:
        0.05209892 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05209892 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
  20. Wouters, P.; Vries, R. de: Formally citing the Web (2004) 0.00 
    0.0024685997 = product of:
  0.014811598 = sum of:
    0.014811598 = weight(_text_:internet in 3093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014811598 = score(doc=3093,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11352337 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038453303 = queryNorm
        0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 3093, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3093)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Theme
    Internet

Authors

Languages

  • e 34
  • d 9

Types

  • a 41
  • el 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes