Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Huang, M.-H."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Huang, M.-H.; Wu, L.-L.; Wu, Y.-C.: ¬A study of research collaboration in the pre-web and post-web stages : a coauthorship analysis of the information systems discipline (2015) 0.01
    0.00948791 = product of:
      0.06641537 = sum of:
        0.055134792 = weight(_text_:web in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055134792 = score(doc=1729,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 1729, 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=1729)
        0.011280581 = weight(_text_:information in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011280581 = score(doc=1729,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    To explore the possible facilitative role of the Internet in the process of research collaboration, this study endeavored to systematically compare the phenomenon of co-authorship and the impacts of co-authorship between pre-web and post-web stages in the field of information systems. Three hypotheses were proposed in this study. First, research collaboration increases in the post-web stage relative to the pre-web stage. Second, research collaboration is positively related to research impact, operationally defined as the number of citations. Lastly, the positive relationship between research collaboration and research impact is stronger in the post-web stage than that in the pre-web stage. Articles published in the field of information systems in both time periods were collected to test the hypotheses. The empirical results strongly support H1 and H2, showing that co-authorship increases in the post-web stage, and positively correlates with citations received by information systems articles. The positive effects of interdisciplinary collaborations and collaborations among multiple authors are enhanced in the post-web stage, but such enhancement is not found for international collaboration. H3 is partially supported.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.4, S.778-797
  2. Huang, M.-H.; Lin, C.-S.; Chen, D.-Z.: Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact (2011) 0.00
    0.004243123 = product of:
      0.029701859 = sum of:
        0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02465703 = score(doc=4942,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
        0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0050448296 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    The counting of papers and citations is fundamental to the assessment of research productivity and impact. In an age of increasing scientific collaboration across national borders, the counting of papers produced by collaboration between multiple countries, and citations of such papers, raises concerns in country-level research evaluation. In this study, we compared the number counts and country ranks resulting from five different counting methods. We also observed inflation depending on the method used. Using the 1989 to 2008 physics papers indexed in ISI's Web of Science as our sample, we analyzed the counting results in terms of paper count (research productivity) as well as citation count and citation-paper ratio (CP ratio) based evaluation (research impact). The results show that at the country-level assessment, the selection of counting method had only minor influence on the number counts and country rankings in each assessment. However, the influences of counting methods varied between paper count, citation count, and CP ratio based evaluation. The findings also suggest that the popular counting method (whole counting) that gives each collaborating country one full credit may not be the best counting method. Straight counting that accredits only the first or the corresponding author or fractional counting that accredits each collaborator with partial and weighted credit might be the better choices.
    Object
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.12, S.2427-2436
  3. Huang, M.-H.; Tang, M.-C.; Chen, D.-Z.: Inequality of publishing performance and international collaboration in physics (2011) 0.00
    0.0038537113 = product of:
      0.026975978 = sum of:
        0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020922182 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4467, 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=4467)
        0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060537956 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Using a database of 1.4 million papers indexed by Web of Science, we examined the global trends in publication inequality and international collaboration in physics. The publication output and citations received by authors hosted in each country were taken into account. Although inequality decreased over time, further progress toward equality has somewhat abated in recent years. The skewedness of the global distribution in publication output was shown to be correlated with article impact, that is, the inequality is more significant in articles of higher impact. It was also observed that, despite the trend toward more equalitarian distribution, scholarly participation in physics is still determined by a select group. Particularly noteworthy has been China's rapid growth in publication outputs and a gradual improvement in its impact. Finally, the data also suggested regional differences in scientific collaboration. A distinctively high concentration of transnational collaboration and publication performance was found among EU countries.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1156-1165
  4. Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014) 0.00
    0.0023701685 = product of:
      0.016591178 = sum of:
        0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00856136 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
        0.008029819 = product of:
          0.024089456 = sum of:
            0.024089456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024089456 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:11:29
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1917-1928
  5. Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012) 0.00
    0.0022042028 = product of:
      0.0154294185 = sum of:
        0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008737902 = score(doc=4959,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
        0.0066915164 = product of:
          0.020074548 = sum of:
            0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020074548 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.029633347 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    
    Abstract
    This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
  6. Kuan, C.-H.; Huang, M.-H.; Chen, D.-Z.: ¬A two-dimensional approach to performance evaluation for a large number of research institutions (2012) 0.00
    4.32414E-4 = product of:
      0.0060537956 = sum of:
        0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060537956 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
      0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.4, S.817-828