Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Schlögl, C."
  • × author_ss:"Stock, W.G."
  1. Grazia Colonia; Dimmler, E.; Dresel, R.; Messner, C.; Krobath, A.; Petz, S.; Sypien, M.; Boxen, P. van; Harders, M.; Heuer, D.; Jordans, I.; Juchem, K.; Linnertz, M.; Mittelhuber, I.; Schwammel, S.; Schlögl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Informationswissenschaftliche Zeitschriften in szientometrischer Analyse (2002) 0.04 
    0.044690613 = product of:
  0.16758978 = sum of:
    0.022018395 = weight(_text_:und in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022018395 = score(doc=1075,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
    0.022266837 = product of:
      0.044533674 = sum of:
        0.044533674 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044533674 = score(doc=1075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.34475547 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.078770876 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.078770876 = score(doc=1075,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.60343444 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
    0.044533674 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 1075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044533674 = score(doc=1075,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.34475547 = fieldWeight in 1075, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1075)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    In einer szientometrischen bzw. informetrischen Studie werden internationale wie deutschsprachige Zeitschriften der Informations-/Bibliothekswissenschaft und -praxis mittels Zitationsanalyse und Expertenbefragung analysiert. Die zitatenanalytischen Kennwerte umfassen den Impact Factor, die Halbwertszeit, die Zitierfreudigkeit, die relative Häufigkeit von Zeitschriftenselbstreferenzen sowie Soziogramme der einflussreichen Periodika. Der Fragebogen erhebt die Lesehäufigkeit, die Einsetzbarkeit der gelesenen Journale im Tätigkeitsbereich, die Publikationstätigkeit und die Publikationspräferenz sowohl für alle Respondenten als auch für abgrenzbare Gruppen (Praktiker vs. Wissenschaftler, Bibliothekare vs. Dokumentare vs. Informationswissenschaftler, öffentlicher Dienst vs. Informationswirtschaft vs. andere Wirtschaftsunternehmen).
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Imprint
    Köln : FH Köln, Fachbereich Informationswissenschaft
    Series
    Kölner Arbeitspapiere zur Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft; Bd.33
  2. Juchem, K.; Schlögl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Dimensionen der Zeitschriftenszientometrie am Beispiel von "Buch und Bibliothek" (2006) 0.04 
    0.04202783 = product of:
  0.1260835 = sum of:
    0.041525397 = weight(_text_:buch in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041525397 = score(doc=4931,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13472971 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 4931, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4931)
    0.0231145 = weight(_text_:und in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0231145 = score(doc=4931,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.35989314 = fieldWeight in 4931, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4931)
    0.01908586 = product of:
      0.03817172 = sum of:
        0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03817172 = score(doc=4931,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 4931, 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=4931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03817172 = score(doc=4931,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 4931, 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=4931)
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=4931,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4931, 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=4931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(5/15)
    Abstract
    Dimensionen der Zeitschriftenszientometrie sind (1.) die Produktion der Zeitschrift (Artikel, Autoren), (2.) der Inhalt (Themen) (3.) die Rezeption (Leser), (4.) die formale Fachkommunikation (Referenzen, Zitationen) sowie (5.) die Redaktion (Redaktionspolitik, Verlag). Die Zeitschrift "BuB - Forum für Bibliothek und Information" (BuB) wird einer szientometrischen Analyse unterzogen. BuB ist die auflagenstärkste deutschsprachige Zeitschrift des Bibliotheks- und Informationswesens. Innerhalb des Beobachtungszeitraums von 1990 bis 2003 sind 4.297 Beiträge mit insgesamt 6.803 Referenzen intellektuell ausgewertet worden. Im Vergleich zu erwarteten informetrischen Regelmäßigkeiten zeigt BuB bemerkenswerte Besonderheiten: Nicht ein Top-Autor, sondern eine über Jahre hinweg recht homogene Gruppe von Verfassern dominiert die Literaturproduktion bei BuB. Bei den Referenzen zeigt sich eine sehr hohe Konzentration auf die eigene Zeitschrift. BuB gleicht einer Insel, an die nur wenige fremde Informationen angespült werden. Obwohl Männer und Frauen jeweils 50 Prozent der Beiträge erarbeiten, so gibt es doch sowohl Männerdomänen (vor allem Rezensionen, aber auch Aufsätze) als auch Frauendomänen (Kurzbeiträge und Tagungsberichte). Die Halbwertszeit der Referenzen ist mit 2,7 Jahre sehr niedrig, Halbwertszeiten zitierter Monographien sind dabei höher als die der zitierten Zeitschriftenartikel.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.1, S.31-37
  3. Stock, W.G.; Schlögl, C.: Practitioners and academics as authors and readers : the case of LIS journals (2008) 0.02 
    0.018020596 = product of:
  0.067577235 = sum of:
    0.012723906 = product of:
      0.025447812 = sum of:
        0.025447812 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025447812 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19700313 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.025987646 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025987646 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
    0.025447812 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025447812 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.19700313 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
    0.003417871 = product of:
      0.006835742 = sum of:
        0.006835742 = weight(_text_:information in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006835742 = score(doc=2343,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2343, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals. Design/methodology/approach - The research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey. Findings - It is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half-life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal. Research limitations/implications - This research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply. Originality/value - The value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft

Authors

Languages

Types