Search (70 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Pipp, E.: Inhaltlicher Vergleich von Web of Science und Scopus an Hand der erfassten Zeitschriften (2006) 0.01 
    0.014744674 = product of:
  0.066351034 = sum of:
    0.02097615 = product of:
      0.0419523 = sum of:
        0.0419523 = weight(_text_:web in 5940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0419523 = score(doc=5940,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 5940, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.045374885 = product of:
      0.09074977 = sum of:
        0.09074977 = weight(_text_:bewertung in 5940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09074977 = score(doc=5940,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18575147 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.48855478 = fieldWeight in 5940, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Bibliographische Datenbanken sind immer noch von Bedeutung, obwohl diee-Zeitschriften-Plattformen der Verlage (z.B. ScienceDirect) und die Institutional Repositories (Publikationsdatenbanken einzelner wissenschaftlicher Institutionen) auch Suchmöglichkeiten anbieten. Nur in bibliographischen Datenbanken kann verlags- und institutionsübergreifend nach Fachliteratur zu einem Thema bzw. nach wissenschaftlichen Publikationen eines Autors / einer Autorin gesucht werden. Ein wichtiger Ansatzpunktzur Bewertung des Inhaltes einer bibliographischen Datenbank - und erst recht für einen inhaltlichen Vergleich zwischen zwei Konkurrenzdatenbanken - ist daher eine Analyse der darin enthaltenen Zeitschriften hinsichtlich der Anzahl der erfassten Zeitschriften, aber auch hinsichtlich der Wissenschaftlichkeit, der fachlichen Ausrichtung, der Vollständigkeit und der Aktualität derselben. Im Folgenden soll ein solcher Vergleich für das Web of Science und für Scopus versucht werden.
    Object
    Web of Science
  2. Schneider, K.: Scopus contra ISI-WOS : Versuch einer vergleichenden Bewertung aus pharmakognostischer Sicht (2006) 0.01 
    0.014529592 = product of:
  0.065383166 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=39,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 39, 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=39)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.055002663 = product of:
      0.11000533 = sum of:
        0.11000533 = weight(_text_:bewertung in 39) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11000533 = score(doc=39,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18575147 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.5922178 = fieldWeight in 39, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=39)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Bei der vorliegenden Präsentation handelt es sich ausdrücklich um keine umfassende statistisch-bibliometrische Vergleichsanalyse der beiden Datenbanken, sondern um die Darstellung einiger subjektiv ausgewählter, punktueller, jedoch durchaus praxisnaher Suchanfragen (Zeitraum: 23.11. - 06.12.2005). Es wurde dazu nach in Fachzeitschriften publizierten, persönlich bekannten Arbeiten österreichischer Autoren mit vorwiegend "selteneren" deutschsprachigen Namen bzw. Doppelnamen (Wolfgang Wlach, Johannes Saukel, Ulrike Kastner, Karin Zitterl-Eglseer und Roswitha SchrutkaRechtenstamm) gesucht, die am Department für Pharmakognosie / Fakultät für Lebenswissenschaften / Universität Wien wissenschaftlich arbeiten bzw. gearbeitet haben. Weitere Suchanfragen galten (aus der Mitarbeit an Hagers Handbuch der Pharmazeutischen Praxis) persönlich bekannten Arbeiten über in der Phytotherapie, Homöopathie oder Volksheilkunde genutzte Pflanzen (Adlumia, Alchornea cordifolia, Siderits scardica). Zur vergleichenden Bewertung wurden die absolute Anzahl der "relevanten, gesuchten Treffer", die Anzahl der "Dubletten-Treffer" in beiden Datenbanken sowie die in der jeweiligen Datenbank "exklusiven Treffer" tabellarisch zusammen mit eigenen Anmerkungen angeführt.
    Object
    Web of Science
  3. Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020) 0.01 
    0.006904641 = product of:
  0.031070884 = sum of:
    0.017126955 = product of:
      0.03425391 = sum of:
        0.03425391 = weight(_text_:web in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03425391 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013943928 = product of:
      0.027887857 = sum of:
        0.027887857 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027887857 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Conclusion There is a reason why Google Scholar and Web of Science/Scopus are kings of the hills in their various arenas. They have strong brand recogniton, a head start in development and a mass of eyeballs and users that leads to an almost virtious cycle of improvement. Competing against such well established competitors is not easy even when one has deep pockets (Microsoft) or a killer idea (scite). It will be interesting to see how the landscape will look like in 2030. Stay tuned for part II where I review each particular index.
    Date
    17.11.2020 12:22:59
    Object
    Web of Science
  4. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.01 
    0.006651444 = product of:
  0.029931497 = sum of:
    0.017979559 = product of:
      0.035959117 = sum of:
        0.035959117 = weight(_text_:web in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035959117 = score(doc=590,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011951938 = product of:
      0.023903877 = sum of:
        0.023903877 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023903877 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Content
    "Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
    Object
    Web of Science
  5. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.0060629104 = product of:
  0.027283097 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016902596 = product of:
      0.03380519 = sum of:
        0.03380519 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03380519 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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
  6. Marx, W.: Wie mißt man Forschungsqualität? : der Science Citation Index - ein Maßstab für die Bewertung (1996) 0.01 
    0.00576189 = product of:
  0.05185701 = sum of:
    0.05185701 = product of:
      0.10371402 = sum of:
        0.10371402 = weight(_text_:bewertung in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10371402 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18575147 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.5583483 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  7. Wildner, B.: Web of Science - Scopus : Auf der Suche nach Zitierungen (2006) 0.01 
    0.0052094 = product of:
  0.023442298 = sum of:
    0.015474339 = product of:
      0.030948678 = sum of:
        0.030948678 = weight(_text_:web in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030948678 = score(doc=5034,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 5034, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007967959 = product of:
      0.015935918 = sum of:
        0.015935918 = weight(_text_:22 in 5034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015935918 = score(doc=5034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5034, 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=5034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Evaluation ist an der Medizinischen Universität Wien ein wichtiges Thema. So werden die Ressourcen innerhalb der Universität entsprechend der in den Leistungskriterien definierten Bewertungsmethode verteilt, deren Grundlage ein für jeden Fachbereich eigens berechneter normierter Impact Factor darstellt. Wissenschaftliche Leistung kann aber auch auf andere Art gemessen werden. Innerhalb einer Universitätsklinik oder Forschungsgruppe werden die Publikationen der wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter mittels Zitierungsanalyse bewertet. Für eine Bewerbung auf bestimmte Stellen müssen die einzelnen Wissenschaftler jeweils aktuelle Zitierungsanalysen vorlegen. Seit 2005 stellt die Universitätsbibliothek der Medizinischen Universität Wien am Campus die Datenbank Scopus zur Verfügung. Dabei handelt es sich nicht nur um eine weitere naturwissenschaftliche Literaturdatenbank, sondern um ein Konkurrenzprodukt zum Web of Science, dessen Schwerpunkt in der Suche der Referenzfelder liegt und so die Beantwortung der Fragestellung, wie oft eine wissenschaftliche Publikation zitiert wird, ermöglicht. Im seltenen Idealfall liegt eine vollständige Publikationsliste vor, von der ausgehend man eine Zitierungsanalyse starten kann. Meist aber besteht der Wunsch, nur anhand eines Autorennamens und dem Wissen, in welchem Fachgebiet jemand wissenschaftlich tätig ist, rasch die Suche nach Zitierungen zu beginnen. Im Web of Science führt der Weg über eine Cited Reference Search zu einem Cited Reference Index, aus dem man die Zitierzahlen (Times Cited) zu den einzelnen Publikationen eines Autors entnehmen kann. Als Cited Author scheinen neben dem Erstautor auch alle Mitautoren auf, vorausgesetzt die Zitierung bezieht sich auf eine Publikation, die als Source Item im Web of Science in dem Zeitraum erscheint, der für die Institution subskribiert wurde. Abschließend müssen die einzelnen Zitierzahlen eigenhändig addiert werden und ergeben so die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen für einen bestimmten Autor. In Scopus wird nach einer Autorensuche ein Document Citation Overview geboten, der die Publikationen nach Erscheinungsjahr gereiht auflistet und gleichzeitig in einer Übersichtstabelle die Zitierzahlen pro Publikation und Jahr sowie die jeweiligen Gesamtzahlen angibt.
    Date
    4. 6.2006 17:22:15
    Object
    Web of Science
  8. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.00 
    0.004931886 = product of:
  0.022193488 = sum of:
    0.012233539 = product of:
      0.024467077 = sum of:
        0.024467077 = weight(_text_:web in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024467077 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
  9. Huber, C.: Web of science (1999) 0.00 
    0.004349703 = product of:
  0.039147325 = sum of:
    0.039147325 = product of:
      0.07829465 = sum of:
        0.07829465 = weight(_text_:web in 3595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07829465 = score(doc=3595,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.8158776 = fieldWeight in 3595, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Object
    Web of science
  10. Rosenberg, V.: ¬An assessment of ISI's new Web of Science : ISI's services brings citiation indexing to new and advanced researchers (1998) 0.00 
    0.0038446304 = product of:
  0.034601673 = sum of:
    0.034601673 = product of:
      0.06920335 = sum of:
        0.06920335 = weight(_text_:web in 1885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06920335 = score(doc=1885,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.72114074 = fieldWeight in 1885, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1885)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Comments on the affinity of Web technology and citation indexes and reviews the ISI service, Web of Science. Although still requiring refinement, it multiplies the effectiveness of an already effective search tool
    Object
    Web of Science
  11. Stock, W.G.: Forschung im internationalen Vergleich - Wissenschaftsindikatoren auf Zitationsbasis : ISI Essential Science Indicators (2002) 0.00 
    0.003601181 = product of:
  0.03241063 = sum of:
    0.03241063 = product of:
      0.06482126 = sum of:
        0.06482126 = weight(_text_:bewertung in 474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06482126 = score(doc=474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18575147 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.34896767 = fieldWeight in 474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Forschungsergebnisse aus einer elektronischen Datenbank heraus? Rangordnungen der wichtigsten Institutionen, Wissenschaftler, Zeitschriften und sogar Länder in Fachdisziplinen nach Einfluss? Markierung "heißer", hochaktueller Artikel? Auflisten der hochzitierten Forschungsfronten in den einzelnen Wissenschaftsdisziplinen? Und das alles auf Knopfdruck und nicht mittels umständlicher szientometrischer Verfahren? Geht so etwas überhaupt? Es geht. Mit den "Essential Science Indicators" (ESI) legt das ISl ein webbasiertes Informationssystem zur Wissenschaftsevaluation vor, das einzigartige Ergebnisse präsentiert und in der Tat ausgesprochen einfach zu bedienen ist. Aber es geht, verglichen mit ausgeklügelten Methoden der empirischen Wissenschaftsforschung, nicht alles. Wo liegen die Grenzen des Systems? Wir werden die Arbeitsweise der ESI, seine Datenbasis, die eingesetzten informetrischen Algorithmen - und deren methodischen Probleme, die Suchoberfläche sowie die Ergebnisdarstellung skizzieren. Als Beispiel dienen uns Aspekte deutscher Forschung. Etwa: In welcher Disziplin haben Deutschlands Forscher den größten internationalen Einfluss? Welches deutsche Institut der Neurowissenschaften kann aufglobaler Ebene mitmischen? Oder: Welcher in Deutschland tätige Wissenschaftler führt eine disziplinspezifische Rangordnung an?Letztlich: Wer braucht die "Essential Science Indicators"? - Wir testeten die Essential Science Indicators Mitte Februar 2002 anhand der Version vom 1. Januar 2002, die das Zehn-Jahres-Intervall 1991 bis 2000 sowie die ersten zehn Monate aus 2001 berücksichtigt.
  12. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.00 
    0.0035413152 = product of:
  0.031871837 = sum of:
    0.031871837 = product of:
      0.06374367 = sum of:
        0.06374367 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06374367 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  13. Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992) 0.00 
    0.0035413152 = product of:
  0.031871837 = sum of:
    0.031871837 = product of:
      0.06374367 = sum of:
        0.06374367 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06374367 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, 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=4604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    7. 2.2005 14:10:22
  14. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.00 
    0.0034655028 = product of:
  0.031189525 = sum of:
    0.031189525 = product of:
      0.06237905 = sum of:
        0.06237905 = weight(_text_:web in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06237905 = score(doc=5176,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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.
  15. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.00 
    0.0033085097 = product of:
  0.014888294 = sum of:
    0.0069203344 = product of:
      0.013840669 = sum of:
        0.013840669 = weight(_text_:web in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013840669 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007967959 = product of:
      0.015935918 = sum of:
        0.015935918 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015935918 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
  16. New Web Citation Index (2004) 0.00 
    0.003262277 = product of:
  0.029360492 = sum of:
    0.029360492 = product of:
      0.058720984 = sum of:
        0.058720984 = weight(_text_:web in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058720984 = score(doc=2270,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 2270, 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=2270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Philadelphia, PA USA-London UK-Princeton, NJ February, 25, 2004 - Today, Thomson ISI and NEC Laboratories America (NEC) announced their collaboration to create a comprehensive, multidisciplinary citation index for Web-based scholarly resources. The new Web Citation Index(tm) will combine a suite of technologies developed by NEC, including "autonomous citation indexing" tools from NEC's CiteSeer environment, with the capabilities underlying ISI Web of KnowledgeSM. Thomson ISI editors will carefully monitor the quality of this new resource to ensure all indexed material meets the Thomson ISI high-quality standards. During 2004, Thomson ISI and NEC will operate a pilot of the new resource to receive feedback from the scientific and scholarly community. Full access to the index is projected for early 2005. When fully operational, the new resource will be a unique content collection within ISI Web of Knowledge. It will complement the Thomson ISI Web of Science(r), and provide researchers with a new gateway to discovery 4/3 using citation relationships among Web-based documents, such as pre-prints, proceedings, and "open access" research publications.
    Object
    Web of Science
  17. He, Y.; Hui, S.C.: PubSearch : a Web citation-based retrieval system (2001) 0.00 
    0.003262277 = product of:
  0.029360492 = sum of:
    0.029360492 = product of:
      0.058720984 = sum of:
        0.058720984 = weight(_text_:web in 4806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058720984 = score(doc=4806,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.6119082 = fieldWeight in 4806, 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=4806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Many scientific publications are now available on the World Wide Web for researchers to share research findings. However, they tend to be poorly organised, making the search of relevant publications difficult and time-consuming. Most existing search engines are ineffective in searching these publications, as they do not index Web publications that normally appear in PDF (portable document format) or PostScript formats. Proposes a Web citation-based retrieval system, known as PubSearch, for the retrieval of Web publications. PubSearch indexes Web publications based on citation indices and stores them into a Web Citation Database. The Web Citation Database is then mined to support publication retrieval. Apart from supporting the traditional cited reference search, PubSearch also provides document clustering search and author clustering search. Document clustering groups related publications into clusters, while author clustering categorizes authors into different research areas based on author co-citation analysis.
  18. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.00 
    0.00313011 = product of:
  0.02817099 = sum of:
    0.02817099 = product of:
      0.05634198 = sum of:
        0.05634198 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05634198 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  19. Vaughan, L.; Shaw, D.: Web citation data for impact assessment : a comparison of four science disciplines (2005) 0.00 
    0.0030394471 = product of:
  0.027355025 = sum of:
    0.027355025 = product of:
      0.05471005 = sum of:
        0.05471005 = weight(_text_:web in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05471005 = score(doc=3880,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 3880, 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=3880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    The number and type of Web citations to journal articles in four areas of science are examined: biology, genetics, medicine, and multidisciplinary sciences. For a sample of 5,972 articles published in 114 journals, the median Web citation counts per journal article range from 6.2 in medicine to 10.4 in genetics. About 30% of Web citations in each area indicate intellectual impact (citations from articles or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Journals receiving more Web citations also have higher percentages of citations indicating intellectual impact. There is significant correlation between the number of citations reported in the databases from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific) and the number of citations retrieved using the Google search engine (Web citations). The correlation is much weaker for journals published outside the United Kingdom or United States and for multidisciplinary journals. Web citation numbers are higher than ISI citation counts, suggesting that Web searches might be conducted for an earlier or a more fine-grained assessment of an article's impact. The Web-evident impact of non-UK/USA publications might provide a balance to the geographic or cultural biases observed in ISI's data, although the stability of Web citation counts is debatable.
  20. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations : a multi-discipline exploratory analysis (2007) 0.00 
    0.0030394471 = product of:
  0.027355025 = sum of:
    0.027355025 = product of:
      0.05471005 = sum of:
        0.05471005 = weight(_text_:web in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05471005 = score(doc=337,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 337, 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=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    We use a new data gathering method, "Web/URL citation," Web/URL and Google Scholar to compare traditional and Web-based citation patterns across multiple disciplines (biology, chemistry, physics, computing, sociology, economics, psychology, and education) based upon a sample of 1,650 articles from 108 open access (OA) journals published in 2001. A Web/URL citation of an online journal article is a Web mention of its title, URL, or both. For each discipline, except psychology, we found significant correlations between Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI, here: ISI) citations and both Google Scholar and Google Web/URL citations. Google Scholar citations correlated more highly with ISI citations than did Google Web/URL citations, indicating that the Web/URL method measures a broader type of citation phenomenon. Google Scholar citations were more numerous than ISI citations in computer science and the four social science disciplines, suggesting that Google Scholar is more comprehensive for social sciences and perhaps also when conference articles are valued and published online. We also found large disciplinary differences in the percentage overlap between ISI and Google Scholar citation sources. Finally, although we found many significant trends, there were also numerous exceptions, suggesting that replacing traditional citation sources with the Web or Google Scholar for research impact calculations would be problematic.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 56
  • d 14

Types

  • a 68
  • el 6
  • m 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes