Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00639995 = product of:
  0.04479965 = sum of:
    0.036238287 = weight(_text_:web in 235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036238287 = score(doc=235,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 235, 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=235)
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=235,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 235, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=235)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

A journal may be considered as having dimension-specific prestige when its score, based on a given journal ranking model, exceeds a threshold value. But a journal has multidimensional prestige only if it is a prestigious journal with respect to a number of dimensions-e.g., Institute for Scientific Information Impact Factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, and article influence score. The multidimensional prestige of influential journals takes into account the fact that several prestige indicators should be used for a distinct analysis of the impact of scholarly journals in a subject category. After having identified the multidimensionally influential journals, their prestige scores can be aggregated to produce a summary measure of multidimensional prestige for a subject category, which satisfies numerous properties. Using this measure of multidimensional prestige to rank subject categories, we have found the top scientific subject categories of Web of Knowledge as of 2010.

Object

Web of Knowledge

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.5, S.1017-1029

5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 4768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=4768,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4768, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4768)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Here, we show a longitudinal analysis of the ranking of the subject areas of Elsevier's Scopus. To this aim, we present three summary measures based on the journal ranking scores for academic journals in each subject area. This longitudinal study allows us to analyze developmental trends over times in different subject areas with distinct citation and publication patterns. We evaluate the relative performance of each subject area by using the overall prestige for the most important journals with ranking score above a given threshold (e.g., in the first quartile) as well as the overall prestige gap for the less important journals with ranking score below a given threshold (e.g., below the top 10 journals). Thus, we propose that it should be possible to study different subject areas by means of appropriate summary measures of the journal ranking scores, which provide additional information beyond analyzing the inequality of the whole ranking-score distribution for academic journals in each subject area. It allows us to investigate whether subject areas with high levels of overall prestige for the first quartile journals also tended to achieve low levels of overall prestige gap for the journals below the top 10.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.2013-2023

5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=500,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 500, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=500)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

We introduce a novel methodology for mapping academic institutions based on their journal publication profiles. We believe that journals in which researchers from academic institutions publish their works can be considered as useful identifiers for representing the relationships between these institutions and establishing comparisons. However, when academic journals are used for research output representation, distinctions must be introduced between them, based on their value as institution descriptors. This leads us to the use of journal weights attached to the institution identifiers. Since a journal in which researchers from a large proportion of institutions published their papers may be a bad indicator of similarity between two academic institutions, it seems reasonable to weight it in accordance with how frequently researchers from different institutions published their papers in this journal. Cluster analysis can then be applied to group the academic institutions, and dendrograms can be provided to illustrate groups of institutions following agglomerative hierarchical clustering. In order to test this methodology, we use a sample of Spanish universities as a case study. We first map the study sample according to an institution's overall research output, then we use it for two scientific fields (Information and Communication Technologies, as well as Medicine and Pharmacology) as a means to demonstrate how our methodology can be applied, not only for analyzing institutions as a whole, but also in different disciplinary contexts.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.11, S.2328-2340

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=1621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1621)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.117-127