Search (358 results, page 1 of 18)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013) 0.42 
    0.42282733 = product of:
  0.76108915 = sum of:
    0.18681212 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18681212 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24929643 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02940506 = 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)
    0.013840669 = product of:
      0.027681338 = sum of:
        0.027681338 = weight(_text_:web in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027681338 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.18681212 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18681212 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24929643 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02940506 = 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)
    0.18681212 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18681212 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24929643 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02940506 = 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)
    0.18681212 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18681212 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24929643 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02940506 = 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)
  0.5555556 = coord(5/9)
    Content
    Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
  2. Stock, W.G.: Wissenschaftsevaluation : die Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Forschung und Lehre (1994) 0.01 
    0.01152378 = product of:
  0.10371402 = sum of:
    0.10371402 = product of:
      0.20742804 = sum of:
        0.20742804 = weight(_text_:bewertung in 242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20742804 = score(doc=242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18575147 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            1.1166966 = fieldWeight in 242, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  3. Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013) 0.01 
    0.008642835 = product of:
  0.077785514 = sum of:
    0.077785514 = product of:
      0.15557103 = sum of:
        0.15557103 = weight(_text_:bewertung in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15557103 = score(doc=928,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18575147 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.83752245 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Grundsätzlich können wir bei Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft zwischen einer 'qualitative' Form, der Bewertung einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit (z. B. eines Manuskripts oder Forschungsantrags) durch kompetente Peers, und einer 'quantitative' Form, der Bewertung von wissenschaftlicher Arbeit anhand bibliometrischer Indikatoren unterscheiden. Beide Formen der Bewertung sind nicht unumstritten. Die Kritiker des Peer Review sehen vor allem zwei Schwächen des Verfahrens: (1) Verschiedene Gutachter würden kaum in der Bewertung ein und derselben wissenschaftlichen Arbeit übereinstimmen. (2) Gutachterliche Empfehlungen würden systematische Urteilsverzerrungen aufweisen. Gegen die Verwendung von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für die Qualität einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit wird seit Jahren eine Vielzahl von Bedenken geäußert. Zitierhäufigkeiten seien keine 'objektiven' Messungen von wissenschaftlicher Qualität, sondern ein kritisierbares Messkonstrukt. So wird unter anderem kritisiert, dass wissenschaftliche Qualität ein komplexes Phänomen darstelle, das nicht auf einer eindimensionalen Skala (d. h. anhand von Zitierhäufigkeiten) gemessen werden könne. Es werden empirische Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Fairness des Peer Review Verfahrens sowie Forschungsergebnisse zur Güte von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für wissenschaftliche Qualität vorgestellt.
  4. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: How is science cited on the Web? : a classification of google unique Web citations (2007) 0.01 
    0.008292217 = product of:
  0.037314974 = sum of:
    0.027355025 = product of:
      0.05471005 = sum of:
        0.05471005 = weight(_text_:web in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05471005 = score(doc=586,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
  5. 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) 0.01 
    0.00729929 = product of:
  0.032846805 = sum of:
    0.022886856 = product of:
      0.04577371 = sum of:
        0.04577371 = weight(_text_:web in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04577371 = score(doc=2352,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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
  6. Schmitz, J.; Arning, U.; Peters, I.: handbuch.io : Handbuch CoScience / Messung von wissenschaftlichem Impact (2015) 0.01 
    0.0071299747 = product of:
  0.06416977 = sum of:
    0.06416977 = product of:
      0.12833954 = sum of:
        0.12833954 = weight(_text_:bewertung in 2189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12833954 = score(doc=2189,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18575147 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.69092077 = fieldWeight in 2189, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    Die Bewertung der Forschungs- und Publikationsleistung spielt in unterschiedlichen Kontexten im Wissenschaftssystem eine große Rolle, insbesondere weil Drittmittel knapp und mit Renommee verbundene Stellen wie Professuren rar sind. Neben der inhaltlichen und qualitativen Bewertung der wissenschaftlichen Leistung durch Peer Review, wird auch versucht, Publikationsleistungen von Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern, Instituten oder Arbeitsgruppen zu quantifizieren. Diese "Vermessung" von Publikationen wird auch als Bibliometrie (engl. bibliometrics) oder Szientometrie (engl. scientometrics) bezeichnet. Entscheidend sind hierbei in erster Linie drei Kennzahlen: - Produktivität: Anzahl der Publikationen - Wirkung/Impact: Anzahl der Zitationen - Kooperationen: Anzahl der Artikel, die man gemeinsam mit anderen Autoren oder Institutionen publiziert. Der Zitierung kommt in der Wissenschaft eine besondere Bedeutung zu.
  7. Asubiaro, T.V.; Onaolapo, S.: ¬A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef (2023) 0.01 
    0.006922013 = product of:
  0.03114906 = sum of:
    0.02118911 = product of:
      0.04237822 = sum of:
        0.04237822 = weight(_text_:web in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04237822 = score(doc=992,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.4416067 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This is the first study that evaluated the coverage of journals from Africa in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. A list of active journals published in each of the 55 African countries was compiled from Ulrich's periodicals directory and African Journals Online (AJOL) website. Journal master lists for Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef were searched for the African journals. A total of 2,229 unique active African journals were identified from Ulrich (N = 2,117, 95.0%) and AJOL (N = 243, 10.9%) after removing duplicates. The volume of African journals in Web of Science and Scopus databases is 7.4% (N = 166) and 7.8% (N = 174), respectively, compared to the 45.6% (N = 1,017) covered in CrossRef. While making up only 17.% of all the African journals, South African journals had the best coverage in the two most authoritative databases, accounting for 73.5% and 62.1% of all the African journals in Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. In contrast, Nigeria published 44.5% of all the African journals. The distribution of the African journals is biased in favor of Medical, Life and Health Sciences and Humanities and the Arts in the three databases. The low representation of African journals in CrossRef, a free indexing infrastructure that could be harnessed for building an African-centric research indexing database, is concerning.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 14:09:06
    Object
    Web of Science
  8. 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
  9. Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014) 0.01 
    0.0064596576 = product of:
  0.029068459 = sum of:
    0.014982964 = product of:
      0.029965928 = sum of:
        0.029965928 = weight(_text_:web in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029965928 = score(doc=1291,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014085495 = product of:
      0.02817099 = sum of:
        0.02817099 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02817099 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
    Object
    Web of Science
  10. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.01 
    0.0064596576 = product of:
  0.029068459 = sum of:
    0.014982964 = product of:
      0.029965928 = sum of:
        0.029965928 = weight(_text_:web in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029965928 = score(doc=2590,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014085495 = product of:
      0.02817099 = sum of:
        0.02817099 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02817099 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
  11. 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
  12. Zhang, Y.; Jansen, B.J.; Spink, A.: Identification of factors predicting clickthrough in Web searching using neural network analysis (2009) 0.01 
    0.005918263 = product of:
  0.026632184 = sum of:
    0.014680246 = product of:
      0.029360492 = sum of:
        0.029360492 = weight(_text_:web in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029360492 = score(doc=2742,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2742, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011951938 = product of:
      0.023903877 = sum of:
        0.023903877 = weight(_text_:22 in 2742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023903877 = score(doc=2742,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2742, 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=2742)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    In this research, we aim to identify factors that significantly affect the clickthrough of Web searchers. Our underlying goal is determine more efficient methods to optimize the clickthrough rate. We devise a clickthrough metric for measuring customer satisfaction of search engine results using the number of links visited, number of queries a user submits, and rank of clicked links. We use a neural network to detect the significant influence of searching characteristics on future user clickthrough. Our results show that high occurrences of query reformulation, lengthy searching duration, longer query length, and the higher ranking of prior clicked links correlate positively with future clickthrough. We provide recommendations for leveraging these findings for improving the performance of search engine retrieval and result ranking, along with implications for search engine marketing.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:49:11
  13. Neth, M.: Citation analysis and the Web (1998) 0.01 
    0.005789892 = product of:
  0.026054513 = sum of:
    0.012110585 = product of:
      0.02422117 = sum of:
        0.02422117 = weight(_text_:web in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02422117 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013943928 = product of:
      0.027887857 = sum of:
        0.027887857 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027887857 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Date
    10. 1.1999 16:22:37
  14. Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011) 0.01 
    0.005789892 = product of:
  0.026054513 = sum of:
    0.012110585 = product of:
      0.02422117 = sum of:
        0.02422117 = weight(_text_:web in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02422117 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013943928 = product of:
      0.027887857 = sum of:
        0.027887857 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027887857 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, 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=4188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This article aims to identify whether different weighted PageRank algorithms can be applied to author citation networks to measure the popularity and prestige of a scholar from a citation perspective. Information retrieval (IR) was selected as a test field and data from 1956-2008 were collected from Web of Science. Weighted PageRank with citation and publication as weighted vectors were calculated on author citation networks. The results indicate that both popularity rank and prestige rank were highly correlated with the weighted PageRank. Principal component analysis was conducted to detect relationships among these different measures. For capturing prize winners within the IR field, prestige rank outperformed all the other measures
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:02:21
  15. Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013) 0.01 
    0.005789892 = product of:
  0.026054513 = sum of:
    0.012110585 = product of:
      0.02422117 = sum of:
        0.02422117 = weight(_text_:web in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02422117 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013943928 = product of:
      0.027887857 = sum of:
        0.027887857 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027887857 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    In diesem Beitrag wird eine Publikationsanalyse von Beiträgen in von im Web of Science (WoS) indexierten bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften vorgestellt. Die Ergebnisse dieser Analyse bestätigen die anglo-amerikanische Dominanz in der facheinschlägigen Literatur, die bei den primär informationswissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften sogar noch deutlicher ausfällt. Die skandinavischen Länder und der Bereich der Szientometrie stellen gewisse Ausnahmen dar. Die internationale Sichtbarkeit Deutschlands und Österreichs ist hingegen "ausbaufähig".
    Date
    22. 3.2013 14:04:09
  16. 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)
  17. Herb, U.; Geith, U.: Kriterien der qualitativen Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen : Befunde aus dem Projekt visOA (2020) 0.01 
    0.00576189 = product of:
  0.05185701 = sum of:
    0.05185701 = product of:
      0.10371402 = sum of:
        0.10371402 = weight(_text_:bewertung in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10371402 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18575147 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.31699 = idf(docFreq=216, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.5583483 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  18. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.01 
    0.005052425 = product of:
  0.022735912 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014085495 = product of:
      0.02817099 = sum of:
        0.02817099 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02817099 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 12:43:51
  19. He, Z.-L.: International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority (2009) 0.00 
    0.004962764 = product of:
  0.02233244 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3122, 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=3122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011951938 = product of:
      0.023903877 = sum of:
        0.023903877 = weight(_text_:22 in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023903877 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3122, 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=3122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The consistent finding that internationally coauthored papers are more heavily cited has led to a tacit agreement among politicians and scientists that international collaboration in scientific research should be particularly promoted. However, existing studies of research collaboration suffer from a major weakness in that the Thomson Reuters Web of Science until recently did not link author names with affiliation addresses. The general approach has been to hierarchically code papers into international paper, national paper, or local paper based on the address information. This hierarchical coding scheme severely understates the level and contribution of local or national collaboration on an internationally coauthored paper. In this research, I code collaboration variables by hand checking each paper in the sample, use two measures of a paper's impact, and try several regression models. I find that both international collaboration and local collaboration are positively and significantly associated with a paper's impact, but international collaboration does not have more epistemic authority than local collaboration. This result suggests that previous findings based on hierarchical coding might be misleading.
    Date
    26. 9.2009 11:22:05
  20. Li, J.; Shi, D.: Sleeping beauties in genius work : when were they awakened? (2016) 0.00 
    0.004962764 = product of:
  0.02233244 = sum of:
    0.010380501 = product of:
      0.020761002 = sum of:
        0.020761002 = weight(_text_:web in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020761002 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011951938 = product of:
      0.023903877 = sum of:
        0.023903877 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023903877 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    "Genius work," proposed by Avramescu, refers to scientific articles whose citations grow exponentially in an extended period, for example, over 50 years. Such articles were defined as "sleeping beauties" by van Raan, who quantitatively studied the phenomenon of delayed recognition. However, the criteria adopted by van Raan at times are not applicable and may confer recognition prematurely. To revise such deficiencies, this paper proposes two new criteria, which are applicable (but not limited) to exponential citation curves. We searched for genius work among articles of Nobel Prize laureates during the period of 1901-2012 on the Web of Science, finding 25 articles of genius work out of 21,438 papers including 10 (by van Raan's criteria) sleeping beauties and 15 nonsleeping-beauties. By our new criteria, two findings were obtained through empirical analysis: (a) the awakening periods for genius work depend on the increase rate b in the exponential function, and (b) lower b leads to a longer sleeping period.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:13:32

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 324
  • d 32
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 346
  • el 9
  • m 8
  • s 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications