Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Zhou, P."
  • × author_ss:"Leydesdorff, L."
  1. Zhou, P.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparison between the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database and the Science Citation Index in terms of journal hierarchies and interjournal citation relations (2007) 0.00 
    7.559094E-4 = product of:
  0.017385917 = sum of:
    0.017385917 = product of:
      0.034771834 = sum of:
        0.034771834 = weight(_text_:international in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034771834 = score(doc=70,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.44227937 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analyzed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level, and the institutional level (i.e., university journals vs. journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones; however, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.
  2. 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.
  3. Leydesdorff, L.; Zhou, P.: Co-word analysis using the Chinese character set (2008) 0.00 
    4.903207E-4 = product of:
  0.011277375 = sum of:
    0.011277375 = product of:
      0.02255475 = sum of:
        0.02255475 = weight(_text_:29 in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02255475 = score(doc=1970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1970, 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=1970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    12. 7.2008 18:46:29
  4. 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

Authors

Years