-
Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013)
0.45
0.44959024 = product of:
1.0490439 = sum of:
0.20376995 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20376995 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27192625 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.20376995 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20376995 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27192625 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.20376995 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20376995 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27192625 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.20376995 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20376995 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27192625 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.030194107 = weight(_text_:web in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030194107 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.20376995 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20376995 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.27192625 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.42857143 = coord(6/14)
- Content
- Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
-
Mukherjee, B.: Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? : a bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar (2009)
0.04
0.04147033 = product of:
0.14514615 = sum of:
0.071862936 = weight(_text_:open in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071862936 = score(doc=2745,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.49753815 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
0.04354783 = weight(_text_:source in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04354783 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
0.018871317 = weight(_text_:web in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018871317 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
0.010864062 = product of:
0.021728124 = sum of:
0.021728124 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021728124 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2745)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
- Abstract
- Using 17 fully open-access journals published uninterruptedly during 2000 to 2004 in the field of library and information science, the present study investigates the impact of these open-access journals in terms of quantity of articles published, subject distribution of the articles, synchronous and diachronous impact factor, immediacy index, and journals' and authors' self-citation. The results indicate that during this 5-year publication period, there are as many as 1,636 articles published by these journals. At the same time, the articles have received a total of 8,591 Web citations during a 7-year citation period. Eight of 17 journals have received more than 100 citations. First Monday received the highest number of citations; however, the average number of citations per article was the highest in D-Lib Magazine. The value of the synchronous impact factor varies from 0.6989 to 1.0014 during 2002 to 2005, and the diachronous impact factor varies from 1.472 to 2.487 during 2000 to 2004. The range of the immediacy index varies between 0.0714 and 1.395. D-Lib Magazine has an immediacy index value above 0.5 in all the years whereas the immediacy index value varies from year to year for the other journals. When the citations of sample articles were analyzed according to source, it was found that 40.32% of the citations came from full-text articles, followed by 33.35% from journal articles. The percentage of journals' self-citation was only 6.04%.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 17:54:59
-
Zhang, Y.: ¬The effect of open access on citation impact : a comparison study based on Web citation analysis (2006)
0.04
0.035455566 = product of:
0.1654593 = sum of:
0.06223513 = weight(_text_:open in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06223513 = score(doc=5071,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.43088073 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
0.04354783 = weight(_text_:source in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04354783 = score(doc=5071,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
0.059676345 = weight(_text_:web in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059676345 = score(doc=5071,freq=20.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.
-
Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007)
0.03
0.026004681 = product of:
0.121355176 = sum of:
0.050814766 = weight(_text_:open in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050814766 = score(doc=586,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.3518126 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.059676345 = weight(_text_:web in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059676345 = score(doc=586,freq=20.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.010864062 = product of:
0.021728124 = sum of:
0.021728124 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021728124 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Although the analysis of citations in the scholarly literature is now an established and relatively well understood part of information science, not enough is known about citations that can be found on the Web. In particular, are there new Web types, and if so, are these trivial or potentially useful for studying or evaluating research communication? We sought evidence based upon a sample of 1,577 Web citations of the URLs or titles of research articles in 64 open-access journals from biology, physics, chemistry, and computing. Only 25% represented intellectual impact, from references of Web documents (23%) and other informal scholarly sources (2%). Many of the Web/URL citations were created for general or subject-specific navigation (45%) or for self-publicity (22%). Additional analyses revealed significant disciplinary differences in the types of Google unique Web/URL citations as well as some characteristics of scientific open-access publishing on the Web. We conclude that the Web provides access to a new and different type of citation information, one that may therefore enable us to measure different aspects of research, and the research process in particular; but to obtain good information, the different types should be separated.
-
Braun, S.: Manifold: a custom analytics platform to visualize research impact (2015)
0.03
0.025290156 = product of:
0.11802073 = sum of:
0.043117758 = weight(_text_:open in 2906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043117758 = score(doc=2906,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.2985229 = fieldWeight in 2906, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2906)
0.052257393 = weight(_text_:source in 2906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052257393 = score(doc=2906,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.32864225 = fieldWeight in 2906, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2906)
0.02264558 = weight(_text_:web in 2906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02264558 = score(doc=2906,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2906, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2906)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- The use of research impact metrics and analytics has become an integral component to many aspects of institutional assessment. Many platforms currently exist to provide such analytics, both proprietary and open source; however, the functionality of these systems may not always overlap to serve uniquely specific needs. In this paper, I describe a novel web-based platform, named Manifold, that I built to serve custom research impact assessment needs in the University of Minnesota Medical School. Built on a standard LAMP architecture, Manifold automatically pulls publication data for faculty from Scopus through APIs, calculates impact metrics through automated analytics, and dynamically generates report-like profiles that visualize those metrics. Work on this project has resulted in many lessons learned about challenges to sustainability and scalability in developing a system of such magnitude.
-
Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008)
0.02
0.022358723 = product of:
0.10434071 = sum of:
0.04354783 = weight(_text_:source in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04354783 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
0.049928814 = weight(_text_:web in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049928814 = score(doc=2352,freq=14.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.47698978 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
0.010864062 = product of:
0.021728124 = sum of:
0.021728124 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021728124 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
- Object
- Web of Science
-
Teplitskiy, M.; Lu, G.; Duede, E.: Amplifying the impact of open access : Wikipedia and the diffusion of science (2017)
0.02
0.019784702 = product of:
0.13849291 = sum of:
0.086235516 = weight(_text_:open in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.086235516 = score(doc=3782,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.5970458 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
0.052257393 = weight(_text_:source in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052257393 = score(doc=3782,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.32864225 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal's academic status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of it being referenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. These findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.
-
Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000)
0.02
0.019707788 = product of:
0.1379545 = sum of:
0.07390312 = weight(_text_:source in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07390312 = score(doc=4587,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.46477038 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
0.064051375 = weight(_text_:web in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064051375 = score(doc=4587,freq=16.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- This article addresses the question of whether the Web can serve as an information source for research. Specifically, it analyzes by way of content analysis the Web pages retrieved by the major search engines on a particular date (June 7, 1998), as a result of the query 'informetrics OR informetric'. In 807 out of the 942 retrieved pages, the search terms were mentioned in the context of information science. Over 70% of the pages contained only indirect information on the topic, in the form of hypertext links and bibliographical references without annotation. The bibliographical references extracted from the Web pages were analyzed, and lists of most productive authors, most cited authors, works, and sources were compiled. The list of reference obtained from the Web was also compared to data retrieved from commercial databases. For most cases, the list of references extracted from the Web outperformed the commercial, bibliographic databases. The results of these comparisons indicate that valuable, freely available data is hidden in the Web waiting to be extracted from the millions of Web pages
-
Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015)
0.02
0.019568853 = product of:
0.09132131 = sum of:
0.06158593 = weight(_text_:source in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06158593 = score(doc=2598,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.38730863 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
0.018871317 = weight(_text_:web in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018871317 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
0.010864062 = product of:
0.021728124 = sum of:
0.021728124 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021728124 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Newby, G.B.; Greenberg, J.; Jones, P.: Open source software development and Lotka's law : bibliometric patterns in programming (2003)
0.02
0.019268692 = product of:
0.13488084 = sum of:
0.060977723 = weight(_text_:open in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060977723 = score(doc=5140,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.42217514 = fieldWeight in 5140, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5140)
0.07390312 = weight(_text_:source in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07390312 = score(doc=5140,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.46477038 = fieldWeight in 5140, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5140)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Newby, Greenberg, and Jones analyze programming productivity of open source software by counting registered developers contributions found in the Linux Software Map and in Scourceforge. Using seven years of data from a subset of the Linux directory tree LSM data provided 4503 files with 3341 unique author names. The distribution follows Lotka's Law with an exponent of 2.82 as verified by the Kolmolgorov-Smirnov one sample goodness of fit test. Scourceforge data is broken into developers and administrators, but when both were used as authors the Lotka distribution exponent of 2.55 produces the lowest error. This would not be significant by the K-S test but the 3.54% maximum error would indicate a fit and calls into question the appropriateness of K-S for large populations of authors.
-
Thelwall, M.; Vaughan, L.; Björneborn, L.: Webometrics (2004)
0.02
0.018483635 = product of:
0.12938544 = sum of:
0.05661395 = weight(_text_:web in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05661395 = score(doc=4279,freq=18.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
0.07277149 = weight(_text_:log in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07277149 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
0.205552 = queryWeight, product of:
6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.3540296 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.
-
Marchionini, G.: Co-evolution of user and organizational interfaces : a longitudinal case study of WWW dissemination of national statistics (2002)
0.02
0.018328562 = product of:
0.12829994 = sum of:
0.026419844 = weight(_text_:web in 1252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026419844 = score(doc=1252,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1252, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1252)
0.101880096 = weight(_text_:log in 1252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.101880096 = score(doc=1252,freq=2.0), product of:
0.205552 = queryWeight, product of:
6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.49564147 = fieldWeight in 1252, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1252)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- The data systems, policies and procedures, corporate culture, and public face of an agency or institution make up its organizational interface. This case study describes how user interfaces for the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site evolved over a 5-year period along with the [arger organizational interface and how this co-evolution has influenced the institution itself. Interviews with BLS staff and transaction log analysis are the foci in this analysis that also included user informationseeking studies and user interface prototyping and testing. The results are organized into a model of organizational interface change and related to the information life cycle.
-
Hong, T.: ¬The influence of structural and message features an Web site credibility (2006)
0.02
0.017170591 = product of:
0.12019414 = sum of:
0.052257393 = weight(_text_:source in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052257393 = score(doc=5787,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.32864225 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
0.06793674 = weight(_text_:web in 5787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06793674 = score(doc=5787,freq=18.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.64902663 = fieldWeight in 5787, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5787)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- This article explores the associations that message features and Web structural features have with perceptions of Web site credibility. In a within-subjects experiment, 84 participants actively located health-related Web sites an the basis of two tasks that differed in task specificity and complexity. Web sites that were deemed most credible were content analyzed for message features and structural features that have been found to be associated with perceptions of source credibility. Regression analyses indicated that message features predicted perceived Web site credibility for both searches when controlling for Internet experience and issue involvement. Advertisements and structural features had no significant effects an perceived Web site credibility. Institutionaffiliated domain names (.gov, org, edu) predicted Web site credibility, but only in the general search, which was more difficult. Implications of results are discussed in terms of online credibility research and Web site design.
-
Bar-Ilan, J.; Peritz, B.C.: ¬A method for measuring the evolution of a topic on the Web : the case of "informetrics" (2009)
0.02
0.016423155 = product of:
0.11496207 = sum of:
0.06158593 = weight(_text_:source in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06158593 = score(doc=3089,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.38730863 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
0.053376146 = weight(_text_:web in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053376146 = score(doc=3089,freq=16.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.5099235 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- The universe of information has been enriched by the creation of the World Wide Web, which has become an indispensible source for research. Since this source is growing at an enormous speed, an in-depth look of its performance to create a method for its evaluation has become necessary; however, growth is not the only process that influences the evolution of the Web. During their lifetime, Web pages may change their content and links to/from other Web pages, be duplicated or moved to a different URL, be removed from the Web either temporarily or permanently, and be temporarily inaccessible due to server and/or communication failures. To obtain a better understanding of these processes, we developed a method for tracking topics on the Web for long periods of time, without the need to employ a crawler and relying only on publicly available resources. The multiple data-collection methods used allow us to discover new pages related to the topic, to identify changes to existing pages, and to detect previously existing pages that have been removed or whose content is not relevant anymore to the specified topic. The method is demonstrated through monitoring Web pages that contain the term informetrics for a period of 8 years. The data-collection method also allowed us to analyze the dynamic changes in search engine coverage, illustrated here on Google - the search engine used for the longest period of time for data collection in this project.
-
Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003)
0.02
0.015941333 = product of:
0.11158933 = sum of:
0.04354783 = weight(_text_:source in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04354783 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.27386856 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
0.068041496 = weight(_text_:web in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.068041496 = score(doc=5176,freq=26.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.65002745 = fieldWeight in 5176, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5176)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
-
Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F.: SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool (2012)
0.02
0.015895858 = product of:
0.11127101 = sum of:
0.05030405 = weight(_text_:open in 373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05030405 = score(doc=373,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 373, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=373)
0.060966957 = weight(_text_:source in 373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060966957 = score(doc=373,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.38341597 = fieldWeight in 373, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=373)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- This article presents a new open-source software tool, SciMAT, which performs science mapping analysis within a longitudinal framework. It provides different modules that help the analyst to carry out all the steps of the science mapping workflow. In addition, SciMAT presents three key features that are remarkable in respect to other science mapping software tools: (a) a powerful preprocessing module to clean the raw bibliographical data, (b) the use of bibliometric measures to study the impact of each studied element, and (c) a wizard to configure the analysis.
-
Huang, X.; Peng, F,; An, A.; Schuurmans, D.: Dynamic Web log session identification with statistical language models (2004)
0.02
0.015710196 = product of:
0.10997137 = sum of:
0.02264558 = weight(_text_:web in 3096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02264558 = score(doc=3096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3096, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3096)
0.08732579 = weight(_text_:log in 3096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08732579 = score(doc=3096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.205552 = queryWeight, product of:
6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.42483553 = fieldWeight in 3096, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3096)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
-
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
0.0154874325 = product of:
0.072274685 = sum of:
0.028745173 = weight(_text_:open in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028745173 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
0.034838263 = weight(_text_:source in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034838263 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.21909484 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
0.008691249 = product of:
0.017382499 = sum of:
0.017382499 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017382499 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = 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)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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
-
Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018)
0.02
0.0154874325 = product of:
0.072274685 = sum of:
0.028745173 = weight(_text_:open in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028745173 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.19901526 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.034838263 = weight(_text_:source in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034838263 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15900996 = queryWeight, product of:
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.21909484 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.9575505 = idf(docFreq=844, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.008691249 = product of:
0.017382499 = sum of:
0.017382499 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017382499 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11231873 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, 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=4633)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Coleman, A.: Self-archiving and the copyright transfer agreements of ISI-ranked library and information science journals : analytic advantages (2007)
0.02
0.015269297 = product of:
0.106885076 = sum of:
0.08801376 = weight(_text_:open in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08801376 = score(doc=72,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14443703 = queryWeight, product of:
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.6093573 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
0.018871317 = weight(_text_:web in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018871317 = score(doc=72,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10467481 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0320743 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- A study of Thomson-Scientific ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n=52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals toward self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one's works in an Open Archives Initiative (OAI)-compliant open access repository. Sixty-two percent (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open Web; 38% (20) do. Of the 38% that do make CTAs available, two are open access journals. Of the 62% that do not have a publicly available CTA, 40% are silent about self-archiving. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available there is a high level of ambiguity. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and instructions to authors reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals in the study, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright is a moving target, but publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in scholarly journal publishing. The ambivalence of LIS journal publishers provides unique opportunities to members of the community. Authors can self-archive in open access archives. A societyled, global scholarly communication consortium can engage in the strategic building of the LIS information commons. Aggregating OAI-compliant archives and developing disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field's research impact and visibility. It may also ameliorate its own scholarly communication and publishing systems and serve as a model for others.
