-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.01
0.012309823 = product of:
0.070781484 = sum of:
0.012935456 = product of:
0.025870912 = sum of:
0.025870912 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025870912 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.026419718 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026419718 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.025870912 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025870912 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.0055553955 = product of:
0.011110791 = sum of:
0.011110791 = weight(_text_:1 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011110791 = score(doc=3231,freq=4.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.17391305 = coord(4/23)
- Abstract
- As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
- Field
- Bibliothekswesen
Informationswissenschaft
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016)
0.01
0.0102093 = product of:
0.0782713 = sum of:
0.015522547 = product of:
0.031045094 = sum of:
0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031045094 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.031703662 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031703662 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031045094 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.13043478 = coord(3/23)
- Field
- Bibliothekswesen
Informationswissenschaft
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.00
0.0021422622 = product of:
0.024636015 = sum of:
0.015056648 = product of:
0.030113297 = sum of:
0.030113297 = weight(_text_:international in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030113297 = score(doc=4681,freq=6.0), product of:
0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.38302523 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.009579366 = product of:
0.019158732 = sum of:
0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019158732 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
- Abstract
- A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018)
0.00
0.001394615 = product of:
0.016038073 = sum of:
0.008055268 = product of:
0.016110536 = sum of:
0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016110536 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.007982805 = product of:
0.01596561 = sum of:
0.01596561 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01596561 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
- Date
- 29. 9.2018 11:22:09
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Park, H.W.; Wagner, C.: International coauthorship relations in the Social Sciences Citation Index : is internationalization leading the Network? (2014)
0.00
8.333119E-4 = product of:
0.019166173 = sum of:
0.019166173 = product of:
0.038332347 = sum of:
0.038332347 = weight(_text_:international in 1505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038332347 = score(doc=1505,freq=14.0), product of:
0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.48756722 = fieldWeight in 1505, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1505)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- International coauthorship relations have increasingly shaped another dynamic in the natural and life sciences during recent decades. However, much less is known about such internationalization in the social sciences. In this study, we analyze international and domestic coauthorship relations of all citable items in the DVD version of the Social Sciences Citation Index 2011 (SSCI). Network statistics indicate 4 groups of nations: (a) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the United Kingdom and Ireland) are attributed, (b) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries, (c) the Scandinavian nations, and (d) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28, 11 of the EU-15 states have dominant positions. In many respects, the network parameters are not so different from the Science Citation Index. In addition to these descriptive statistics, we address the question of the relative weights of the international versus domestic networks. An information-theoretical test is proposed at the level of organizational addresses within each nation; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (as in the Science Citation Index). In some countries (e.g., France), however, the national distribution is leading more than the international one. Decomposition of the United States in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more U.S. states are domestically oriented in the SSCI and more internationally in the SCI. The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones but not by replacing them.
-
Zhou, P.; Su, X.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences (2010)
0.00
6.546369E-4 = product of:
0.015056648 = sum of:
0.015056648 = product of:
0.030113297 = sum of:
0.030113297 = weight(_text_:international in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030113297 = score(doc=3580,freq=6.0), product of:
0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.38302523 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas - political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics - are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations.
-
Chen, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays : a new method of publication portfolio analysis (2014)
0.00
3.5022903E-4 = product of:
0.008055268 = sum of:
0.008055268 = product of:
0.016110536 = sum of:
0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016110536 = score(doc=1200,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1200, 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=1200)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 16:38:28
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Ivanova, I.A.: Mutual redundancies in interhuman communication systems : steps toward a calculus of processing meaning (2014)
0.00
3.5022903E-4 = product of:
0.008055268 = sum of:
0.008055268 = product of:
0.016110536 = sum of:
0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016110536 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1211, 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=1211)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 16:44:54
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011)
0.00
3.470785E-4 = product of:
0.007982805 = sum of:
0.007982805 = product of:
0.01596561 = sum of:
0.01596561 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01596561 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction of interdisciplinarity : the development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal Climatic Change, 1977-2013 (2016)
0.00
3.470785E-4 = product of:
0.007982805 = sum of:
0.007982805 = product of:
0.01596561 = sum of:
0.01596561 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01596561 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Date
- 24. 8.2016 17:53:22
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Zhou, P.; Bornmann, L.: How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? : An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts (2013)
0.00
2.4153895E-4 = product of:
0.0055553955 = sum of:
0.0055553955 = product of:
0.011110791 = sum of:
0.011110791 = weight(_text_:1 in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011110791 = score(doc=532,freq=4.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.96-107
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.: Local emergence and global diffusion of research technologies : an exploration of patterns of network formation (2011)
0.00
2.0495258E-4 = product of:
0.0047139092 = sum of:
0.0047139092 = product of:
0.0094278185 = sum of:
0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 4445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0094278185 = score(doc=4445,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 4445, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4445)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- Grasping the fruits of "emerging technologies" is an objective of many government priority programs in a knowledge-based and globalizing economy. We use the publication records (in the Science Citation Index) of two emerging technologies to study the mechanisms of diffusion in the case of two innovation trajectories: small interference RNA (siRNA) and nanocrystalline solar cells (NCSC). Methods for analyzing and visualizing geographical and cognitive diffusion are specified as indicators of different dynamics. Geographical diffusion is illustrated with overlays to Google Maps; cognitive diffusion is mapped using an overlay to a map based on the ISI subject categories. The evolving geographical networks show both preferential attachment and small-world characteristics. The strength of preferential attachment decreases over time while the network evolves into an oligopolistic control structure with small-world characteristics. The transition from disciplinary-oriented ("Mode 1") to transfer-oriented ("Mode 2") research is suggested as the crucial difference in explaining the different rates of diffusion between siRNA and NCSC.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013)
0.00
2.0495258E-4 = product of:
0.0047139092 = sum of:
0.0047139092 = product of:
0.0094278185 = sum of:
0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0094278185 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Goldstone, R.L.: Interdisciplinarity at the journal and specialty level : the changing knowledge bases of the journal cognitive science (2014)
0.00
2.0495258E-4 = product of:
0.0047139092 = sum of:
0.0047139092 = product of:
0.0094278185 = sum of:
0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0094278185 = score(doc=1187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.164-177
-
Rotolo, D.; Rafols, I.; Hopkins, M.M.; Leydesdorff, L.: Strategic intelligence on emerging technologies : scientometric overlay mapping (2017)
0.00
2.0495258E-4 = product of:
0.0047139092 = sum of:
0.0047139092 = product of:
0.0094278185 = sum of:
0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 3322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0094278185 = score(doc=3322,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 3322, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3322)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.214-233
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors : an alternative research design with policy implications (2011)
0.00
1.707938E-4 = product of:
0.0039282576 = sum of:
0.0039282576 = product of:
0.007856515 = sum of:
0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007856515 = score(doc=4919,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Rafols, I.; Chen, C.: Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journal-journal citations (2013)
0.00
1.707938E-4 = product of:
0.0039282576 = sum of:
0.0039282576 = product of:
0.007856515 = sum of:
0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007856515 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- Using the option Analyze Results with the Web of Science, one can directly generate overlays onto global journal maps of science. The maps are based on the 10,000+ journals contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices (2011). The disciplinary diversity of the retrieval is measured in terms of Rao-Stirling's "quadratic entropy" (Izsák & Papp, 1995). Since this indicator of interdisciplinarity is normalized between 0 and 1, interdisciplinarity can be compared among document sets and across years, cited or citing. The colors used for the overlays are based on Blondel, Guillaume, Lambiotte, and Lefebvre's (2008) community-finding algorithms operating on the relations among journals included in the JCR. The results can be exported from VOSViewer with different options such as proportional labels, heat maps, or cluster density maps. The maps can also be web-started or animated (e.g., using PowerPoint). The "citing" dimension of the aggregated journal-journal citation matrix was found to provide a more comprehensive description than the matrix based on the cited archive. The relations between local and global maps and their different functions in studying the sciences in terms of journal literatures are further discussed: Local and global maps are based on different assumptions and can be expected to serve different purposes for the explanation.
-
Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015)
0.00
1.707938E-4 = product of:
0.0039282576 = sum of:
0.0039282576 = product of:
0.007856515 = sum of:
0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007856515 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Abstract
- The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Nooy, W. de: Can "hot spots" in the sciences be mapped using the dynamics of aggregated journal-journal citation relations (2017)
0.00
1.707938E-4 = product of:
0.0039282576 = sum of:
0.0039282576 = product of:
0.007856515 = sum of:
0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007856515 = score(doc=3328,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.023567878 = queryNorm
0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3328, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3328)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.1, S.197-213
