Search (404 results, page 1 of 21)

0.02308332 = product of:
  0.115416594 = sum of:
    0.050501734 = weight(_text_:web in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050501734 = score(doc=4279,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
    0.06491486 = weight(_text_:log in 4279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06491486 = score(doc=4279,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.3540296 = fieldWeight in 4279, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4279)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Webometrics, the quantitative study of Web-related phenomena, emerged from the realization that methods originally designed for bibliometric analysis of scientific journal article citation patterns could be applied to the Web, with commercial search engines providing the raw data. Almind and Ingwersen (1997) defined the field and gave it its name. Other pioneers included Rodriguez Gairin (1997) and Aguillo (1998). Larson (1996) undertook exploratory link structure analysis, as did Rousseau (1997). Webometrics encompasses research from fields beyond information science such as communication studies, statistical physics, and computer science. In this review we concentrate on link analysis, but also cover other aspects of webometrics, including Web log fle analysis. One theme that runs through this chapter is the messiness of Web data and the need for data cleansing heuristics. The uncontrolled Web creates numerous problems in the interpretation of results, for instance, from the automatic creation or replication of links. The loose connection between top-level domain specifications (e.g., com, edu, and org) and their actual content is also a frustrating problem. For example, many .com sites contain noncommercial content, although com is ostensibly the main commercial top-level domain. Indeed, a skeptical researcher could claim that obstacles of this kind are so great that all Web analyses lack value. As will be seen, one response to this view, a view shared by critics of evaluative bibliometrics, is to demonstrate that Web data correlate significantly with some non-Web data in order to prove that the Web data are not wholly random. A practical response has been to develop increasingly sophisticated data cleansing techniques and multiple data analysis methods.

0.022889657 = product of:
  0.11444829 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 1252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=1252,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1252, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1252)
    0.09088081 = weight(_text_:log in 1252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09088081 = score(doc=1252,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.49564147 = fieldWeight in 1252, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1252)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

The data systems, policies and procedures, corporate culture, and public face of an agency or institution make up its organizational interface. This case study describes how user interfaces for the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site evolved over a 5-year period along with the [arger organizational interface and how this co-evolution has influenced the institution itself. Interviews with BLS staff and transaction log analysis are the foci in this analysis that also included user informationseeking studies and user interface prototyping and testing. The results are organized into a model of organizational interface change and related to the information life cycle.

0.019619705 = product of:
  0.098098524 = sum of:
    0.020200694 = weight(_text_:web in 3096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020200694 = score(doc=3096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3096)
    0.07789783 = weight(_text_:log in 3096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07789783 = score(doc=3096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.42483553 = fieldWeight in 3096, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3096)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

0.018176163 = product of:
  0.18176162 = sum of:
    0.18176162 = weight(_text_:log in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18176162 = score(doc=3124,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.99128294 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

We present a rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and prove that it is a power law (hence a straight line in the log-log scale). This is confirmed by experimental data of Pyykkö and by data produced in this article on 206 mathematics journals. This distribution is of a completely different nature than the impact factor (IF) rank-order distribution which (as proved in a previous article) is S-shaped. This is also confirmed by our example. Only in the log-log scale of the h-index distribution do we notice a concave deviation of the straight line for higher ranks. This phenomenon is discussed.

0.012852487 = product of:
  0.12852487 = sum of:
    0.12852487 = weight(_text_:log in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12852487 = score(doc=1069,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.7009429 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Bradford distributions describe the relationship between 'journal productivities' and 'journal rankings by productivity'. However, different ranking conventions exist, implying some ambiguity as to what the Bradford distribution 'is'. A need accordingly arises for a standard ranking convention to assist comparisons between empirical data, and also comparisons between empirical data and theoretical models. Five ranking conventions are described including the one used originally by Bradford, along with suggested distinctions between 'Bradford data set', 'Bradford distribution', 'Bradford graph', 'Bradford model', and 'Bradford's law'. Constructions such as the Lotka distribution, Groos droop (generalised to accomodate growth as well as fall-off in the Bradford log-graph), Brookes hooks, and the slope and intercept of the Bradford log graph are clarified on this basis

0.012852487 = product of:
  0.12852487 = sum of:
    0.12852487 = weight(_text_:log in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12852487 = score(doc=3698,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.7009429 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

This brief communication analyzes the statistics and methods Lotka used to derive his inverse square law of scientific productivity from the standpoint of modern theory. It finds that he violated the norms of this theory by extremely truncating his data on the right. It also proves that Lotka himself played an important role in establishing the commonly used method of identifying power-law behavior by the R2 fit to a regression line on a log-log plot that modern theory considers unreliable by basing the derivation of his law on this very method.

0.012253862 = product of:
  0.06126931 = sum of:
    0.053446017 = weight(_text_:web in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053446017 = score(doc=3090,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.57238775 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
    0.007823291 = product of:
      0.023469873 = sum of:
        0.023469873 = weight(_text_:29 in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023469873 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3090, 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=3090)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Recent Web-searching and -mining tools are combining text and link analysis to improve ranking and crawling algorithms. The central assumption behind such approaches is that there is a correiation between the graph structure of the Web and the text and meaning of pages. Here I formalize and empirically evaluate two general conjectures drawing connections from link information to lexical and semantic Web content. The link-content conjecture states that a page is similar to the pages that link to it, and the link-cluster conjecture that pages about the same topic are clustered together. These conjectures are offen simply assumed to hold, and Web search tools are built an such assumptions. The present quantitative confirmation sheds light an the connection between the success of the latest Web-mining techniques and the small world topology of the Web, with encouraging implications for the design of better crawling algorithms.

Date

9. 1.2005 19:20:29

0.011982392 = product of:
  0.05991196 = sum of:
    0.023567477 = weight(_text_:web in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023567477 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = 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)
    0.036344483 = product of:
      0.054516725 = sum of:
        0.027381519 = weight(_text_:29 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027381519 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 108, 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=108)
        0.027135205 = weight(_text_:22 in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027135205 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Date

10. 1.1999 16:22:37

Source

Art documentation. 17(1998) no.1, S.29-33

0.011938854 = product of:
  0.059694268 = sum of:
    0.053233504 = weight(_text_:web in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053233504 = score(doc=586,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = 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)
    0.006460763 = product of:
      0.019382289 = sum of:
        0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019382289 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

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.

0.011404229 = product of:
  0.057021145 = sum of:
    0.050501734 = weight(_text_:web in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050501734 = score(doc=1236,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.5408555 = fieldWeight in 1236, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1236)
    0.00651941 = product of:
      0.019558229 = sum of:
        0.019558229 = weight(_text_:29 in 1236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019558229 = score(doc=1236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1236, 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=1236)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Web links have been studied by information scientists for at least six years but it is only in the past two that clear evidence has emerged to show that counts of links to scholarly Web spaces (universities and departments) can correlate significantly with research measures, giving some credence to their use for the investigation of scholarly communication. This paper reports an a study to investigate the factors that influence the creation of links to journal Web sites. An empirical approach is used: collecting data and testing for significant patterns. The specific questions addressed are whether site age and site content are inducers of links to a journal's Web site as measured by the ratio of link counts to Journal Impact Factors, two variables previously discovered to be related. A new methodology for data collection is also introduced that uses the Internet Archive to obtain an earliest known creation date for Web sites. The results show that both site age and site content are significant factors for the disciplines studied: library and information science, and law. Comparisons between the two fields also show disciplinary differences in Web site characteristics. Scholars and publishers should be particularly aware that richer content an a journal's Web site tends to generate links and thus the traffic to the site.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.1, S.29-38

0.0103863785 = product of:
  0.10386378 = sum of:
    0.10386378 = weight(_text_:log in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10386378 = score(doc=1151,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.5664474 = fieldWeight in 1151, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1151)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Variables measuring the nature and level of Internet usage by natural scientists improve the explanatory power of a traditional bibliographic model of scholarly productivity. The data used to construct these variables come from log files generated by the internal accounting modules of the UNIX operating system. The effects of Internet usage on productivity are quntifiable, and it is possible to calculate tradeoffs between Internet usage and the more traditional inputs

0.010199822 = product of:
  0.05099911 = sum of:
    0.044538345 = weight(_text_:web in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044538345 = score(doc=2352,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = 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)
    0.006460763 = product of:
      0.019382289 = sum of:
        0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019382289 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

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

0.009644936 = product of:
  0.04822468 = sum of:
    0.040401388 = weight(_text_:web in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040401388 = score(doc=5768,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
    0.007823291 = product of:
      0.023469873 = sum of:
        0.023469873 = weight(_text_:29 in 5768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023469873 = score(doc=5768,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5768, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5768)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

A citation analysis of undergraduate term papers in microeconomics revealed a significant decrease in the frequency of scholarly resources cited between 1996 and 1999. Book citations decreased from 30% to 19%, newspaper citations increased from 7% to 19%, and Web citations increased from 9% to 21%. Web citations checked in 2000 revealed that only 18% of URLs cited in 1996 led to the correct Internet document. For 1999 bibliographies, only 55% of URLs led to the correct document. The authors recommend (1) setting stricter guidelines for acceptable citations in course assignments; (2) creating and maintaining scholarly portals for authoritative Web sites with a commitment to long-term access; and (3) continuing to instruct students how to critically evaluate resources

Date

29. 9.2001 14:01:09

0.009539052 = product of:
  0.047695257 = sum of:
    0.041234493 = weight(_text_:web in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041234493 = score(doc=992,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = 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)
    0.006460763 = product of:
      0.019382289 = sum of:
        0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019382289 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

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

0.009180347 = product of:
  0.091803476 = sum of:
    0.091803476 = weight(_text_:log in 214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091803476 = score(doc=214,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.5006735 = fieldWeight in 214, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=214)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The article presents the early findings of an exploratory deep log analysis of journal usage on OhioLINK, conducted as part of the MaxData project, funded by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services. OhioLINK, the original Big Deal, provides a single digital platform of nearly 6,000 full-text journals for more than 600,000 people; for the purposes of the analysis, the raw logs were obtained from OhioLINK for the period June 2004 to December 2004. During this period approximately 1,215,000 items were viewed on campus in October 2004 and 1,894,000 items viewed off campus between June and December 2004. This article provides an analysis of the age of material that users consulted. From a methodological point of view OhioLINK offered an attractive platform to conduct age of publication usage studies because it is one of the oldest e-journal libraries and thus offered a relatively long archive and stable platform to conduct the studies. The project sought to determine whether the subject, the search approach adopted, and the type of journal item viewed (contents page, abstract, full-text article, etc.) was a factor in regard to the age of articles used.

0.008558852 = product of:
  0.042794257 = sum of:
    0.016833913 = weight(_text_:web in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016833913 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
    0.025960347 = product of:
      0.03894052 = sum of:
        0.019558229 = weight(_text_:29 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019558229 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
        0.019382289 = weight(_text_:22 in 178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019382289 = score(doc=178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10019246 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 178, 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=178)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Purpose Public attitudes towards COVID-19 and social distancing are critical in reducing its spread. It is therefore important to understand public reactions and information dissemination in all major forms, including on social media. This article investigates important issues reflected on Twitter in the early stages of the public reaction to COVID-19. Design/methodology/approach A thematic analysis of the most retweeted English-language tweets mentioning COVID-19 during March 10-29, 2020. Findings The main themes identified for the 87 qualifying tweets accounting for 14 million retweets were: lockdown life; attitude towards social restrictions; politics; safety messages; people with COVID-19; support for key workers; work; and COVID-19 facts/news. Research limitations/implications Twitter played many positive roles, mainly through unofficial tweets. Users shared social distancing information, helped build support for social distancing, criticised government responses, expressed support for key workers and helped each other cope with social isolation. A few popular tweets not supporting social distancing show that government messages sometimes failed. Practical implications Public health campaigns in future may consider encouraging grass roots social web activity to support campaign goals. At a methodological level, analysing retweet counts emphasised politics and ignored practical implementation issues. Originality/value This is the first qualitative analysis of general COVID-19-related retweeting.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.008491324 = product of:
  0.04245662 = sum of:
    0.033329446 = weight(_text_:web in 1498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033329446 = score(doc=1498,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.35694647 = fieldWeight in 1498, 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=1498)
    0.009127174 = product of:
      0.027381519 = sum of:
        0.027381519 = weight(_text_:29 in 1498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027381519 = score(doc=1498,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10064617 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028611459 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1498, 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=1498)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Abstract

Assignability of authors to Web pages using either normal browsing procedures or browsing assisted by simple automatic extraction was investigated. Candidate strings for 1000 pages were extracted automatically from title elements, meta-tags, and address-like and copyright-like passages; 539 of the pages produced at least one candidate: 310 candidates from titles, 66 from meta-tags, 91 from address-like passages, and 259 from copyright-like passages. An assistant attempted to identify personal authors for 943 pages by examining the pages themselves and related pages; this added 90 pages with authors to the pages from which no candidate strings were extracted. Specific problems are noted and some refinements to the extraction methods are suggested.

Date

29. 2.2008 17:17:33

0.008203137 = product of:
  0.041015685 = sum of:
    0.029231945 = weight(_text_:kommunikation in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029231945 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14706601 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.140109 = idf(docFreq=703, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.19876751 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.140109 = idf(docFreq=703, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
    0.011783739 = weight(_text_:web in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011783739 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0933738 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.12619963 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)

Content

Vgl. auch Open Password, Nr.167 vom 01.03.2017 :"Eugene Garfield, Begründer und Pionier der Zitationsindexierung und der Ziationsanalyse, ohne den die Informationswissenschaft heute anders aussähe, ist im Alter von 91 Jahren gestorben. Er hinterlässt Frau, drei Söhne, eine Tochter, eine Stieftochter, zwei Enkeltöchter und zwei Großelternkinder. Garfield machte seinen ersten Abschluss als Bachelor in Chemie an der Columbia University in New York City im Jahre 1949. 1954 sattelte er einen Abschluss in Bibliothekswissenschaft drauf. 1961 sollte er im Fach strukturelle Linguistik promovieren. Als Chemie-Student war er nach eigenen Angaben weder besonders gut noch besonders glücklich. Sein "Erweckungserlebnis" hatte er auf einer Tagung der American Chemical Society, als er entdeckte, dass sich mit der Suche nach Literatur womöglich ein Lebensunterhalt bestreiten lasse. "So I went to the Chairman of the meeting and said: "How do you get a job in this racket?" Ab 1955 war Garfield zunächst als Berater für pharmazeutische Unternehmen tätig. Dort spezialisierte er sich auf Fachinformationen, indem er Inhalte relevanter Fachzeitschriften erarbeitete. 1955 schlug er in "Science" seine bahnbrechende Idee vor, Zitationen wissenschaftlicher Veröffentlichungen systematisch zu erfassen und Zusammenhänge zwischen Zitaten deutlich zu machen. 1960 gründete Garfield das Institute für Scientific Informationen, dessen CEO er bis 1992 blieb. 1964 brachte er den Scientific Information Index heraus. Weitere Maßgrößen wie der Social Science Index (ab 1973), der Arts and Humanities Citation Index (ab 1978) und der Journal Citation Index folgten. Diese Verzeichnisse wurden in dem "Web of Science" zusammengefasst und als Datenbank elektronisch zugänglich gemacht. Damit wurde es den Forschern ermöglich, die für sie relevante Literatur "at their fingertips" zu finden und sich in ihr zurechtzufinden. Darüber hinaus wurde es mit Hilfe der Rankings von Garfields Messgrößen möglich, die relative wissenschaftliche Bedeutung wissenschaftlicher Beiträge, Autoren, wissenschaftlicher Einrichtungen, Regionen und Länder zu messen.
Garfield wandte sich im Zusammenhang mit seinen Messgrößen gegen "Bibliographic Negligence" und "Citation Amnesia", Er schrieb 2002: "There will never be a perfect solution to the problem of acknowledging intellectual debts. But a beginning can be made if journal editors will demand a signed pledge from authors that they have searched Medline, Science Citation Index, or other appropriate print and electronic databases." Er warnte aber auch vor einen unsachgemäßen Umgang mit seinen Messgößen und vor übertriebenen Erwartungen an sie in Zusammenhang mit Karriereentscheidungen über Wissenschaftler und Überlebensentscheidungen für wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen. 1982 übernahm die Thomson Corporation ISI für 210 Millionen Dollar. In der heutigen Nachfolgeorganisation Clarivate Analytics sind mehr als 4000 Mitarbeitern in über hundert Ländern beschäftigt. Garfield gründete auch eine Zeitung für Wissenschaftler, speziell für Biowissenschaftler, "The Scientist", die weiterbesteht und als kostenfreier Pushdienst bezogen werden kann. In seinen Beiträgen zur Wissenschaftspolitik kritisierte er beispielsweise die Wissenschaftsberater von Präsident Reagen 1986 als "Advocats of the administration´s science policies, rather than as objective conduits for communication between the president and the science community." Seinen Beitrag, mit dem er darum warb, die Förderung von UNESCO-Forschungsprogrammen fortzusetzen, gab er den Titel: "Let´s stand up für Global Science". Das ist auch in Trump-Zeiten ein guter Titel, da die US-Regierung den Wahrheitsbegriff, auf der Wissenschaft basiert, als bedeutungslos verwirft und sich auf Nationalismus und Abschottung statt auf internationale Kommunikation, Kooperation und gemeinsame Ausschöpfung von Interessen fokussiert."

0.007789783 = product of:
  0.07789783 = sum of:
    0.07789783 = weight(_text_:log in 3592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07789783 = score(doc=3592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.42483553 = fieldWeight in 3592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3592)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

The goal of the study was to determine the underlying processes leading to the observed collaborator distribution in modern scientific fields, with special attention to nonpower-law behavior. Nanoscience is used as a case study of a modern interdisciplinary field and its coauthorship network for 2000-2004 period is constructed from the NanoBank database. We find three collaboration modes that correspond to three distinct ranges in the distribution of collaborators: (1) for authors with fewer than 20 collaborators (the majority) preferential attachment does not hold and they form a log-normal hook instead of a power law; (2) authors with more than 20 collaborators benefit from preferential attachment and form a power law tail; and (3) authors with between 250 and 800 collaborators are more frequent than expected because of the hyperauthorship practices in certain subfields.

0.007789783 = product of:
  0.07789783 = sum of:
    0.07789783 = weight(_text_:log in 3430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07789783 = score(doc=3430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18335998 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028611459 = queryNorm
        0.42483553 = fieldWeight in 3430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.4086204 = idf(docFreq=197, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3430)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)

Abstract

Citation measures, and newer altmetric measures such as downloads are now commonly used to inform personnel decisions. How well do or can these measures measure or predict the past, current, or future scholarly performance of an individual? Using data from the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System we analyze the publication, citation, download, and distinction histories of a cohort of 922 individuals who received a U.S. PhD in astronomy in the period 1972-1976. By examining the same and different measures at the same and different times for the same individuals we are able to show the capabilities and limitations of each measure. Because the distributions are lognormal, measurement uncertainties are multiplicative; we show that in order to state with 95% confidence that one person's citations and downloads are significantly higher than another person's, the log difference in the ratio of counts must be at least 0.3dex, which corresponds to a multiplicative factor of 2.