Search (256 results, page 1 of 13)

0.049865644 = product of:
  0.24932821 = sum of:
    0.24932821 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24932821 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3327227 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.038245905 = product of:
  0.09561476 = sum of:
    0.08309533 = weight(_text_:relation in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08309533 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40466496 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
    0.012519434 = product of:
      0.037558302 = sum of:
        0.037558302 = weight(_text_:29 in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037558302 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article examines some consequences for information control of the tendency of occurrences of contentbearing terms to appear together, or clump. Properties of previously defined clumping measures are reviewed and extended, and the significance of these measures for devising retrieval strategies discussed. A new type of clumping measure, which extends the earlier measures by permitting gaps within a clump, is defined, and several variants examined. Experiments are carried out that indicate the relation between the new measure and one of the earlier measures, as well as the ability of the two types of measure to predict compression efficiency

Date

29. 9.2001 14:00:18

0.037152566 = product of:
  0.09288141 = sum of:
    0.083938956 = weight(_text_:relation in 3603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083938956 = score(doc=3603,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40877336 = fieldWeight in 3603, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3603)
    0.008942453 = product of:
      0.02682736 = sum of:
        0.02682736 = weight(_text_:29 in 3603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02682736 = score(doc=3603,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3603, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3603)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper addresses a bibliometric methodology to discover the structure of the scientific 'landscape' in order to gain detailed insight into the development of MD fields, their interaction, and the transfer of knowledge between them. This methodology is appropriate to visualize the position of MD activities in relation to interdisciplinary MD developments, and particularly in relation to socio-economic problems. Furthermore, it allows the identification of the major actors. It even provides the possibility of foresight. We describe a first approach to apply bibliometric mapping as an instrument to investigate characteristics of knowledge transfer. In this paper we discuss the creation of 'maps of science' with help of advanced bibliometric methods. This 'bibliometric cartography' can be seen as a specific type of data-mining, applied to large amounts of scientific publications. As an example we describe the mapping of the field neuroscience, one of the largest and fast growing fields in the life sciences. The number of publications covered by this database is about 80,000 per year, the period covered is 1995-1998. Current research is going an to update the mapping for the years 1999-2002. This paper addresses the main lines of the methodology and its application in the study of knowledge transfer.

Source

Gaining insight from research information (CRIS2002): Proceedings of the 6th International Conference an Current Research Information Systems, University of Kassel, August 29 - 31, 2002. Eds: W. Adamczak u. A. Nase

0.03323813 = product of:
  0.16619065 = sum of:
    0.16619065 = weight(_text_:relation in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16619065 = score(doc=243,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.8093299 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.

0.03278221 = product of:
  0.081955515 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=5685,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
    0.010730944 = product of:
      0.03219283 = sum of:
        0.03219283 = weight(_text_:29 in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03219283 = score(doc=5685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A problem, raised by Wallace (JASIS, 37,136-145,1986), on the relation between the journal's median citation age and its number of articles is studied. Leaving open the problem as such, we give a statistical explanation of this relationship, when replacing "median" by "mean" in Wallace's problem. The cloud of points, found by Wallace, is explained in this sense that the points are scattered over the area in first quadrant, limited by a curve of the form y=1 + E/x**2 where E is a constant. This curve is obtained by using the Central Limit Theorem in statistics and, hence, has no intrinsic informetric foundation. The article closes with some reflections on explanations of regularities in informetrics, based on statistical, probabilistic or informetric results, or on a combination thereof

Date

29. 9.2001 13:59:34

0.032743596 = product of:
  0.081858985 = sum of:
    0.07122457 = weight(_text_:relation in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07122457 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.3468557 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
    0.010634413 = product of:
      0.031903237 = sum of:
        0.031903237 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031903237 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The causal relation between research and economic growth is of particular importance for political support of science and technology as well as for academic purposes. This article revisits the causal relationship between research articles published and economic growth in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for the period 1981-2011, using bootstrap panel causality analysis, which accounts for cross-section dependency and heterogeneity across countries. The article, by the use of the specific method and the choice of the country group, makes a contribution to the existing literature. Our empirical results support unidirectional causality running from research output (in terms of total number of articles published) to economic growth for the US, Finland, Hungary, and Mexico; the opposite causality from economic growth to research articles published for Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, the UK, Austria, Israel, and Poland; and no causality for the rest of the countries. Our findings provide important policy implications for research policies and strategies for OECD countries.

Date

8. 7.2015 22:00:42

0.027318506 = product of:
  0.06829626 = sum of:
    0.059353806 = weight(_text_:relation in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059353806 = score(doc=4445,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.2890464 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
    0.008942453 = product of:
      0.02682736 = sum of:
        0.02682736 = weight(_text_:29 in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02682736 = score(doc=4445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Citations in scientific literature are important both for tracking the historical development of scientific ideas and for forecasting research trends. However, the diffusion mechanisms underlying the citation process remain poorly understood, despite the frequent and longstanding use of citation counts for assessment purposes within the scientific community. Here, we extend the study of citation dynamics to a more general diffusion process to understand how citation growth associates with different diffusion patterns. Using a classic diffusion model, we quantify and illustrate specific diffusion mechanisms which have been proven to exert a significant impact on the growth and decay of citation counts. Experiments reveal a positive relation between the "low p and low q" pattern and high scientific impact. A sharp citation peak produced by rapid change of citation counts, however, has a negative effect on future impact. In addition, we have suggested a simple indicator, saturation level, to roughly estimate an individual article's current stage in the life cycle and its potential to attract future attention. The proposed approach can also be extended to higher levels of aggregation (e.g., individual scientists, journals, institutions), providing further insights into the practice of scientific evaluation.

Date

29. 9.2018 13:24:10

0.027286327 = product of:
  0.06821582 = sum of:
    0.059353806 = weight(_text_:relation in 4545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059353806 = score(doc=4545,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.2890464 = fieldWeight in 4545, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4545)
    0.008862011 = product of:
      0.026586032 = sum of:
        0.026586032 = weight(_text_:22 in 4545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026586032 = score(doc=4545,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4545, 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=4545)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

With the growth in biomedical literature, the necessity of extracting useful information from the literature has increased. One approach to extracting biomedical knowledge involves using citation relations to discover entity relations. The assumption is that citation relations between any two articles connect knowledge entities across the articles, enabling the detection of implicit relationships among biomedical entities. The goal of this article is to examine the characteristics of biomedical entities connected via intermediate entities using citation relations aided by text mining. Based on the importance of symptoms as biomedical entities, we created triples connected via citation relations to identify drug-disease pairs with shared symptoms as intermediate entities. Drug-disease interactions built via citation relations were compared with co-occurrence-based interactions. Several types of analyses were adopted to examine the properties of the extracted entity pairs by comparing them with drug-disease interaction databases. We attempted to identify the characteristics of drug-disease pairs through citation relations in association with biomedical entities. The results showed that the citation relation-based approach resulted in diverse types of biomedical entities and preserved topical consistency. In addition, drug-disease pairs identified only via citation relations are interesting for clinical trials when they are examined using BITOLA.

Date

1.11.2018 18:19:22

0.026860466 = product of:
  0.13430233 = sum of:
    0.13430233 = weight(_text_:relation in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13430233 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.65403736 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Using a power-law model, the two best-known topics in citation analysis, namely the impact factor and the Hirsch index, are unified into one relation (not a function). The validity of our model is, at least in a qualitative way, confirmed by real data.

0.026860466 = product of:
  0.13430233 = sum of:
    0.13430233 = weight(_text_:relation in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13430233 = score(doc=1236,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.65403736 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The S-shaped functional relation between the mean citation score and the proportion of top 10% publications for the 500 Leiden Ranking universities is explained using results of the shifted Lotka function. Also the concave or convex relation between the proportion of top 100?% publications, for different fractions ?, is explained using the obtained new informetric model.

0.024672914 = product of:
  0.12336457 = sum of:
    0.12336457 = weight(_text_:relation in 2803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12336457 = score(doc=2803,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.60077167 = fieldWeight in 2803, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2803)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The relation between Pearson's correlation coefficient and Salton's cosine measure is revealed based on the different possible values of the division of the L1-norm and the L2-norm of a vector. These different values yield a sheaf of increasingly straight lines which together form a cloud of points, being the investigated relation. The theoretical results are tested against the author co-citation relations among 24 informetricians for whom two matrices can be constructed, based on co-citations: the asymmetric occurrence matrix and the symmetric co-citation matrix. Both examples completely confirm the theoretical results. The results enable us to specify an algorithm that provides a threshold value for the cosine above which none of the corresponding Pearson correlations would be negative. Using this threshold value can be expected to optimize the visualization of the vector space.

0.023502907 = product of:
  0.117514536 = sum of:
    0.117514536 = weight(_text_:relation in 810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.117514536 = score(doc=810,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.5722827 = fieldWeight in 810, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=810)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The present study aims at describing both the common and the distinguishing features of coauthorship trends and patterns in selected science fields. The relation between coauthorship schemes and other bibliometric features, such as publication activity and citation impact are analyzed. I show that, while copublication activity has grown considerably, the extent of coauthorship and its relation with productivity and citation impact largely varies among fields. Besides universally valid tendencies, subject specific features can be found.

0.021854803 = product of:
  0.054637007 = sum of:
    0.047483046 = weight(_text_:relation in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047483046 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.23123713 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
    0.0071539627 = product of:
      0.021461887 = sum of:
        0.021461887 = weight(_text_:29 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021461887 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study explores the tendency of authors to recite themselves and others in multiple works over time, using the insights gained to build citation theory. The set of all authors whom an author cites is defined as that author's citation identity. The study explains how to retrieve citation identities from the Institute for Scientific Information's files on Dialog and how to deal with idiosyncrasies of these files. As the author's oeuvre grows, the identity takes the form of a core-and-scatter distribution that may be divided into authors cited only once (unicitations) and authors cited at least twice (recitations). The latter group, especially those recited most frequently, are interpretable as symbols of a citer's main substantive concerns. As illustrated by the top recitees of eight information scientists, identities are intelligible, individualized, and wide-ranging. They are ego-centered without being egotistical. They are often affected by social ties between citers and citees, but the universal motivator seems to be the perceived relevance of the citees' works. Citing styles in identities differ: "scientific-paper style" authors recite heavily, adding to core; "bibliographic-essay style" authors are heavy on unicitations, adding to scatter; "literature-review style" authors do both at once. Identities distill aspects of citers' intellectual lives, such as orienting figures, interdisciplinary interests, bidisciplinary careers, and conduct in controversies. They can also be related to past schemes for classifying citations in categories such as positive-negative and perfunctory- organic; indeed, one author's frequent recitation of another, whether positive or negative, may be the readiest indicator of an organic relation between them. The shape of the core-and-scatter distribution of names in identities can be explained by the principle of least effort. Citers economize on effort by frequently reciting only a relatively small core of names in their identities. They also economize by frequent use of perfunctory citations, which require relatively little context, and infrequent use of negative citations, which require contexts more laborious to set

Date

29. 9.2001 13:58:38

0.02014535 = product of:
  0.100726746 = sum of:
    0.100726746 = weight(_text_:relation in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100726746 = score(doc=830,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.49052802 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to examine the practical potentials of Bradford's law in relation to core-journal identification. Design/methodology/approach - Literature studies and empirical tests (Bradford analyses). Findings - Literature studies reveal that the concept of "subject" has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradford's law. The results of two empirical tests (Bradford analyses) demonstrate that different operationalizations of the concept of "subject" produce quite different lists of core-journals. Further, an empirical test reveals that Bradford analyses function discriminatorily against minority views. Practical implications - Bradford analysis can no longer be regarded as an objective and neutral method. The received view on Bradford's law needs to be revised. Originality/value - The paper questions one of the old dogmas of the field.

0.019941 = product of:
  0.099705 = sum of:
    0.099705 = product of:
      0.1495575 = sum of:
        0.075116605 = weight(_text_:29 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075116605 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13805294 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
        0.07444089 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07444089 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 18:55:29

0.019100428 = product of:
  0.04775107 = sum of:
    0.041547664 = weight(_text_:relation in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041547664 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.20233248 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    0.0062034074 = product of:
      0.018610222 = sum of:
        0.018610222 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018610222 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13743061 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03924537 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.01899322 = product of:
  0.09496609 = sum of:
    0.09496609 = weight(_text_:relation in 7225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09496609 = score(doc=7225,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.46247426 = fieldWeight in 7225, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7225)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

There exists a direct linear relation between journal production and impact factor. The more articles a 'normal' journal publishes, the larger its impact factor. Review journals and translation journals are clear exceptions to this rule. The field of mathematics and chemistry seem to be large scale exceptions

0.01899322 = product of:
  0.09496609 = sum of:
    0.09496609 = weight(_text_:relation in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09496609 = score(doc=3058,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.46247426 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article studies the probabilities of the occurence of multi-word (m-word) phrases (m=2,3,...) in relation to the probabilities of occurence of the single words. It is well known that, in the latter case, the lae of Zipf is valid (i.e., a power law). We prove that in the case of m-word phrases (m>=2), this is not the case. We present 2 independent proof of this

0.01899322 = product of:
  0.09496609 = sum of:
    0.09496609 = weight(_text_:relation in 4142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09496609 = score(doc=4142,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.46247426 = fieldWeight in 4142, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4142)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Among existing theoretical models for the h-index, Hirsch's original approach, the Egghe-Rousseau model, and the Glänzel-Schubert model are the three main representatives. Assuming a power-law relation or Heaps' law between publications and citations a unified theoretical explanation for these three models is provided. It is shown that on the level of universities, the Glänzel-Schubert model fits best.

0.016787792 = product of:
  0.083938956 = sum of:
    0.083938956 = weight(_text_:relation in 3466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083938956 = score(doc=3466,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20534351 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03924537 = queryNorm
        0.40877336 = fieldWeight in 3466, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.232299 = idf(docFreq=641, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3466)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Power laws as defined in 1926 by A. Lotka are increasing in importance because they have been found valid in varied social networks including the Internet. In this article some unique properties of power laws are proven. They are shown to characterize functions with the scalefree property (also called seif-similarity property) as weIl as functions with the product property. Power laws have other desirable properties that are not shared by exponential laws, as we indicate in this paper. Specifically, Naranan (1970) proves the validity of Lotka's law based on the exponential growth of articles in journals and of the number of journals. His argument is reproduced here and a discrete-time argument is also given, yielding the same law as that of Lotka. This argument makes it possible to interpret the information production process as a seif-similar fractal and show the relation between Lotka's exponent and the (seif-similar) fractal dimension of the system. Lotkaian informetric systems are seif-similar fractals, a fact revealed by Mandelbrot (1977) in relation to nature, but is also true for random texts, which exemplify a very special type of informetric system.