Search (428 results, page 1 of 22)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  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. Schlögl, C; Stock, W.G.: Deutsche Zeitschriften des Bibliotheks- und Informationswesens : Leser, Zitate und Redaktionen in szientometrischer Analyse (2006) 0.04 
    0.039105665 = product of:
  0.14664623 = sum of:
    0.026690327 = weight(_text_:und in 52) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026690327 = score(doc=52,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.41556883 = fieldWeight in 52, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=52)
    0.026991483 = product of:
      0.053982966 = sum of:
        0.053982966 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 52) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053982966 = score(doc=52,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.41790676 = fieldWeight in 52, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=52)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038981467 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 52) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038981467 = score(doc=52,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 52, 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=52)
    0.053982966 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 52) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053982966 = score(doc=52,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.41790676 = fieldWeight in 52, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=52)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Deutschsprachige Fachzeitschriften des Bibliotheks- und Informationswesens (BID) werden über Kennwerte zur Leserwahrnehmung (Lesehäufigkeit, Anwendbarkeit der gelesenen Inhalte, Publikationshäufigkeit, Publikationspräferenz), Zitatenanalyse (Impact Factor, Halbwertszeit der Referenzen, Referenzen pro Artikel, Anteil der Zeitschriftenselbstreferenzen) und der Redaktion (Struktur der Autoren- und Leserschaft, Artikelauswahl, Ablehnungsquote, Überarbeitungsquote) szientometrisch beschrieben. Besonderes Augenmerk wird auf die Gegenüberstellung der Ergebnisse der Teilstudien gelegt. Die deutschsprachigen BID-Zeitschriften werden von Praktikern als Autoren wie als Leser dominiert. Praktiker schreiben für Praktiker, es wird wenig zitiert, aktuelle Themen überwiegen. Die Ablehnungsquoten eingereichter Artikel sind gering; durchgehendes Peer Review ist bei der Artikelauswahl die Ausnahme. Einige deutschsprachige BID-Zeitschriften (vor allem die Verbandszeitschriften) gleichen informationellen Inseln. Eine informations- und bibliothekswissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, die internationalen Qualitätsstandards folgt und die für das gesamte BID relevante Themen behandelt, fehlt in den deutschsprachigen Ländern völlig.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 53(2006) H.5, S.244-255
  4. Bensman, S.J.: Probability distributions in library and information science : a historical and practitioner viewpoint (2000) 0.04 
    0.036323193 = product of:
  0.13621196 = sum of:
    0.025447812 = product of:
      0.050895624 = sum of:
        0.050895624 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050895624 = score(doc=4859,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.39400625 = fieldWeight in 4859, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.05197529 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05197529 = score(doc=4859,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 4859, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4859)
    0.050895624 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050895624 = score(doc=4859,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.39400625 = fieldWeight in 4859, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4859)
    0.0078932345 = product of:
      0.015786469 = sum of:
        0.015786469 = weight(_text_:information in 4859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015786469 = score(doc=4859,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 4859, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    This paper has a dual character dictated by its twofold purpose. First, it is a speculative historiographic essay containing an attempt to fix the present posotion of library and information science within the context of the probabilisitc revolution that has been encompassing all of science. Second, it comprises a guide to practitioners engaged in statistical research in library and information science
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
    Bibliothekswesen
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.9, S.816-833
  5. Cronin, B.: Acknowledgement trends in the research literature of information science (2001) 0.04 
    0.03570669 = product of:
  0.13390009 = sum of:
    0.025447812 = product of:
      0.050895624 = sum of:
        0.050895624 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050895624 = score(doc=4488,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.39400625 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.05197529 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05197529 = score(doc=4488,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
    0.050895624 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050895624 = score(doc=4488,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.39400625 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
    0.0055813594 = product of:
      0.011162719 = sum of:
        0.011162719 = weight(_text_:information in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011162719 = score(doc=4488,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Data were gathered on acknowledgements in five leading information science journals for the years 1991-1999. The results were compared with data from two earlier studies of the same journals. Analysis of the aggregate data (1971-1999) confirms the general impression that acknowledgement has become an institutionalised element of the scholarly communication process, reflecting the growing cognitive and structural complexity of contemporary research.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
  6. Levitt, J.M.; Thelwall, M.: Citation levels and collaboration within library and information science (2009) 0.03 
    0.031731267 = product of:
  0.11899225 = sum of:
    0.015904883 = product of:
      0.031809766 = sum of:
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
    0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031809766 = score(doc=2734,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
    0.038793035 = sum of:
      0.01103113 = weight(_text_:information in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01103113 = score(doc=2734,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2734, 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=2734)
      0.027761906 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027761906 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 12:43:51
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.434-442
  7. Mukherjee, B.: Do open-access journals in library and information science have any scholarly impact? : a bibliometric study of selected open-access journals using Google Scholar (2009) 0.03 
    0.028899875 = product of:
  0.10837452 = sum of:
    0.015904883 = product of:
      0.031809766 = sum of:
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
    0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031809766 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
    0.028175311 = sum of:
      0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008544678 = score(doc=2745,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 2745) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=2745,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2745, 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=2745)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Using 17 fully open-access journals published uninterruptedly during 2000 to 2004 in the field of library and information science, the present study investigates the impact of these open-access journals in terms of quantity of articles published, subject distribution of the articles, synchronous and diachronous impact factor, immediacy index, and journals' and authors' self-citation. The results indicate that during this 5-year publication period, there are as many as 1,636 articles published by these journals. At the same time, the articles have received a total of 8,591 Web citations during a 7-year citation period. Eight of 17 journals have received more than 100 citations. First Monday received the highest number of citations; however, the average number of citations per article was the highest in D-Lib Magazine. The value of the synchronous impact factor varies from 0.6989 to 1.0014 during 2002 to 2005, and the diachronous impact factor varies from 1.472 to 2.487 during 2000 to 2004. The range of the immediacy index varies between 0.0714 and 1.395. D-Lib Magazine has an immediacy index value above 0.5 in all the years whereas the immediacy index value varies from year to year for the other journals. When the citations of sample articles were analyzed according to source, it was found that 40.32% of the citations came from full-text articles, followed by 33.35% from journal articles. The percentage of journals' self-citation was only 6.04%.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 17:54:59
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.581-594
  8. Tedd, L.A.: Use of library and information science journals by Master's students in their dissertations : experiences at the University of Wales Aberystwyth (2006) 0.03 
    0.027428728 = product of:
  0.102857724 = sum of:
    0.01908586 = product of:
      0.03817172 = sum of:
        0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03817172 = score(doc=4895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 4895, 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=4895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038981467 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038981467 = score(doc=4895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4895, 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=4895)
    0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03817172 = score(doc=4895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 4895, 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=4895)
    0.0066186786 = product of:
      0.013237357 = sum of:
        0.013237357 = weight(_text_:information in 4895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013237357 = score(doc=4895,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 4895, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this research is to report on research undertaken into the use made of library and information science (LIS) journals in dissertations written by students undertaking the Master's course in Information and Library Studies at the University of Wales Aberystwyth. Design/methodology/approach - Analysis of the citations of 100 (post 2000) dissertations submitted gives an indication of the range of material used in dissertations. In addition, responses to questionnaires from students provide information about how relevant papers are found from LIS journals. Findings - Journals with a practical bias were cited more than research-oriented journals. Lists of the most "popular" journal titles are included. Originality/value - The research provides a "snapshot" of the use made of LIS journals by Master's students in their dissertations.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: UK library and information school: Aberystwyth
  9. González-Alcaide, G.; Castelló-Cogollos, L.; Navarro-Molina, C.; Aleixandre-Benavent, R.; Valderrama-Zurián, J.C.: Library and information science research areas : analysis of journal articles in LISA (2008) 0.03 
    0.027428728 = product of:
  0.102857724 = sum of:
    0.01908586 = product of:
      0.03817172 = sum of:
        0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03817172 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038981467 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038981467 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
    0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03817172 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
    0.0066186786 = product of:
      0.013237357 = sum of:
        0.013237357 = weight(_text_:information in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013237357 = score(doc=1347,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    The main fields of research in Library Science and Documentation are identified by quantifying the frequency of appearance and the analysis of co-occurrence of the descriptors assigned to 11,273 indexed works in the Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) database for the 2004-2005 period. The analysis made has enabled three major core research areas to be identified: World Wide Web, Libraries and Education. There are a further 12 areas of research with specific development, one connected with the library sphere and another 11 connected with the World Wide Web and Internet: Networks, Computer Security, Information technologies, Electronic Resources, Electronic Publications, Bibliometrics, Electronic Commerce, Computer applications, Medicine, Searches and Online Information retrieval.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.1, S.150-154
  10. Janssens, F.; Leta, J.; Glänzel, W.; Moor, B. de: Towards mapping library and information science (2006) 0.03 
    0.027242394 = product of:
  0.10215897 = sum of:
    0.01908586 = product of:
      0.03817172 = sum of:
        0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03817172 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038981467 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038981467 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
    0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03817172 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
    0.005919926 = product of:
      0.011839852 = sum of:
        0.011839852 = weight(_text_:information in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839852 = score(doc=992,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    In an earlier study by the authors, full-text analysis and traditional bibliometric methods were combined to map research papers published in the journal Scientometrics. The main objective was to develop appropriate techniques of full-text analysis and to improve the efficiency of the individual methods in the mapping of science. The number of papers was, however, rather limited. In the present study, we extend the quantitative linguistic part of the previous studies to a set of five journals representing the field of Library and Information Science (LIS). Almost 1000 articles and notes published in the period 2002-2004 have been selected for this exercise. The optimum solution for clustering LIS is found for six clusters. The combination of different mapping techniques, applied to the full text of scientific publications, results in a characteristic tripod pattern. Besides two clusters in bibliometrics, one cluster in information retrieval and one containing general issues, webometrics and patent studies are identified as small but emerging clusters within LIS. The study is concluded with the analysis of cluster representations by the selected journals.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.6, S.1614-1642
  11. Sugimoto, C.R.; Pratt , J.A.; Hauser, K.: Using field cocitation analysis to assess reciprocal and shared impact of LIS/MIS fields (2008) 0.03 
    0.027242394 = product of:
  0.10215897 = sum of:
    0.01908586 = product of:
      0.03817172 = sum of:
        0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03817172 = score(doc=1959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 1959, 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=1959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038981467 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038981467 = score(doc=1959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 1959, 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=1959)
    0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03817172 = score(doc=1959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 1959, 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=1959)
    0.005919926 = product of:
      0.011839852 = sum of:
        0.011839852 = weight(_text_:information in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839852 = score(doc=1959,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1959, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    This study utilized bibliometric tools to analyze the relationship between two separate, but related, fields: Library and Information Science (LIS) and Management Information Systems (MIS). The top-ranked 48 journals in each field were used as the unit of analysis. Using these journals, field cocitation was introduced as a method for evaluating the relationships between the two fields. The three-phased study evaluated (a) the knowledge imported/exported between LIS and MIS, (b) the body of knowledge influenced by both fields, and (c) the overlap in fields as demonstrated by multidimensional scaling. Data collection and analysis were performed using DIALOG and SPSS programs. The primary findings from this study indicate that (a) the MIS impact on LIS is greater than the reverse, (b) there is a growing trend for shared impact between the two disciplines, and (c) the area of overlap between the two fields is predominately those journals focusing on technology systems and digital information. Additionally, this study validated field cocitation as a method by which to evaluate relationships between fields.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1441-1453
  12. Coleman, A.: Self-archiving and the copyright transfer agreements of ISI-ranked library and information science journals : analytic advantages (2007) 0.02 
    0.022701995 = product of:
  0.08513248 = sum of:
    0.015904883 = product of:
      0.031809766 = sum of:
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=72,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 72, 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=72)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=72,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 72, 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=72)
    0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031809766 = score(doc=72,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 72, 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=72)
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 72) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=72,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 72, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=72)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    A study of Thomson-Scientific ISI ranked Library and Information Science (LIS) journals (n=52) is reported. The study examined the stances of publishers as expressed in the Copyright Transfer Agreements (CTAs) of the journals toward self-archiving, the practice of depositing digital copies of one's works in an Open Archives Initiative (OAI)-compliant open access repository. Sixty-two percent (32) do not make their CTAs available on the open Web; 38% (20) do. Of the 38% that do make CTAs available, two are open access journals. Of the 62% that do not have a publicly available CTA, 40% are silent about self-archiving. Even among the 20 journal CTAs publicly available there is a high level of ambiguity. Closer examination augmented by publisher policy documents on copyright, self-archiving, and instructions to authors reveals that only five, 10% of the ISI-ranked LIS journals in the study, actually prohibit self-archiving by publisher rule. Copyright is a moving target, but publishers appear to be acknowledging that copyright and open access can co-exist in scholarly journal publishing. The ambivalence of LIS journal publishers provides unique opportunities to members of the community. Authors can self-archive in open access archives. A societyled, global scholarly communication consortium can engage in the strategic building of the LIS information commons. Aggregating OAI-compliant archives and developing disciplinary-specific library services for an LIS commons has the potential to increase the field's research impact and visibility. It may also ameliorate its own scholarly communication and publishing systems and serve as a model for others.
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
    Bibliothekswesen
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.286-296
  13. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.02 
    0.02261402 = product of:
  0.1130701 = sum of:
    0.02179256 = weight(_text_:und in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02179256 = score(doc=77,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.05197529 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05197529 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.3981634 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.03930225 = sum of:
      0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0078932345 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.031409014 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031409014 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    Abstract
    Die Webometrie ist ein Teilbereich der Informationswissenschaft der zur Zeit auf die Analyse von Linkstrukturen konzentriert ist. Er ist stark von der Zitationsanalyse geprägt, wie der empirische Schwerpunkt auf der Wissenschaftsanalyse zeigt. In diesem Beitrag diskutieren wir die Nutzung linkbasierter Maße in einem breiten informetrischen Kontext und bewerten verschiedene Verfahren, auch im Hinblick auf ihr generelles Potentialfür die Sozialwissenschaften. Dabei wird auch ein allgemeiner Rahmenfür Linkanalysen mit den erforderlichen Arbeitsschritten vorgestellt. Abschließend werden vielversprechende zukünftige Anwendungsfelder der Webometrie benannt, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Analyse von Blogs.
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406
  14. Aström, F.: Changes in the LIS research front : time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004 (2007) 0.02 
    0.022525748 = product of:
  0.08447155 = sum of:
    0.015904883 = product of:
      0.031809766 = sum of:
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 329, 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=329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 329, 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=329)
    0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031809766 = score(doc=329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 329, 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=329)
    0.004272339 = product of:
      0.008544678 = sum of:
        0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008544678 = score(doc=329,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 329, 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=329)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Based on articles published in 1990-2004 in 21 library and information science (LIS) journals, a set of cocitation analyses was performed to study changes in research fronts over the last 15 years, where LIS is at now, and to discuss where it is heading. To study research fronts, here defined as current and influential cocited articles, a citations among documents methodology was applied; and to study changes, the analyses were time-sliced into three 5-year periods. The results show a stable structure of two distinct research fields: informetrics and information seeking and retrieval (ISR). However, experimental retrieval research and user oriented research have merged into one ISR field; and IR and informetrics also show signs of coming closer together, sharing research interests and methodologies, making informetrics research more visible in mainstream LIS research. Furthermore, the focus on the Internet, both in ISR research and in informetrics-where webometrics quickly has become a dominating research area-is an important change. The future is discussed in terms of LIS dependency on technology, how integration of research areas as well as technical systems can be expected to continue to characterize LIS research, and how webometrics will continue to develop and find applications.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.7, S.947-957
  15. Vaughan, L.; Shaw , D.: Bibliographic and Web citations : what Is the difference? (2003) 0.02 
    0.022316683 = product of:
  0.08368756 = sum of:
    0.015904883 = product of:
      0.031809766 = sum of:
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 5176, 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=5176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 5176, 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=5176)
    0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031809766 = score(doc=5176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 5176, 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=5176)
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 5176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=5176,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5176, 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=5176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Vaughn, and Shaw look at the relationship between traditional citation and Web citation (not hyperlinks but rather textual mentions of published papers). Using English language research journals in ISI's 2000 Journal Citation Report - Information and Library Science category - 1209 full length papers published in 1997 in 46 journals were identified. Each was searched in Social Science Citation Index and on the Web using Google phrase search by entering the title in quotation marks, and followed for distinction where necessary with sub-titles, author's names, and journal title words. After removing obvious false drops, the number of web sites was recorded for comparison with the SSCI counts. A second sample from 1992 was also collected for examination. There were a total of 16,371 web citations to the selected papers. The top and bottom ranked four journals were then examined and every third citation to every third paper was selected and classified as to source type, domain, and country of origin. Web counts are much higher than ISI citation counts. Of the 46 journals from 1997, 26 demonstrated a significant correlation between Web and traditional citation counts, and 11 of the 15 in the 1992 sample also showed significant correlation. Journal impact factor in 1998 and 1999 correlated significantly with average Web citations per journal in the 1997 data, but at a low level. Thirty percent of web citations come from other papers posted on the web, and 30percent from listings of web based bibliographic services, while twelve percent come from class reading lists. High web citation journals often have web accessible tables of content.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.14, S.1313-1324
  16. Maharana, B.; Nayak, K.; Sahu, N.K.: Scholarly use of web resources in LIS research : a citation analysis (2006) 0.02 
    0.022316683 = product of:
  0.08368756 = sum of:
    0.015904883 = product of:
      0.031809766 = sum of:
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=53,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 53, 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=53)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=53,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 53, 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=53)
    0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031809766 = score(doc=53,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 53, 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=53)
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 53) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=53,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 53, 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=53)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The essential purpose of this paper is to measure the amount of web resources used for scholarly contributions in the area of library and information science (LIS) in India. It further aims to make an analysis of the nature and type of web resources and studies the various standards for web citations. Design/methodology/approach - In this study, the result of analysis of 292 web citations spread over 95 scholarly papers published in the proceedings of the National Conference of the Society for Information Science, India (SIS-2005) has been reported. All the 292 web citations were scanned and data relating to types of web domains, file formats, styles of citations, etc., were collected through a structured check list. The data thus obtained were systematically analyzed, figurative representations were made and appropriate interpretations were drawn. Findings - The study revealed that 292 (34.88 per cent) out of 837 were web citations, proving a significant correlation between the use of Internet resources and research productivity of LIS professionals in India. The highest number of web citations (35.6 per cent) was from .edu/.ac type domains. Most of the web resources (46.9 per cent) cited in the study were hypertext markup language (HTML) files. Originality/value - The paper is the result of an original analysis of web citations undertaken in order to study the dependence of LIS professionals in India on web sources for their scholarly contributions. This carries research value for web content providers, authors and researchers in LIS.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
  17. Meho, L.I.; Yang, K.: Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty : Web of science versus scopus and google scholar (2007) 0.02 
    0.022316683 = product of:
  0.08368756 = sum of:
    0.015904883 = product of:
      0.031809766 = sum of:
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=620,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 620, 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=620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 620, 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=620)
    0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031809766 = score(doc=620,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 620, 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=620)
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=620,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 620, 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=620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. The ISI databases (or Web of Science [WoS]), however, may no longer be sufficient because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Using citations to the work of 25 library and information science (LIS) faculty members as a case study, the authors examine the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors. The WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.2105-2125
  18. Bibliometrische Analysen - ein Beitrag für ein gerechtes Notensystem in der Forschung? : Konferenz in Jülich (2004) 0.02 
    0.019083703 = product of:
  0.071563885 = sum of:
    0.014067038 = weight(_text_:und in 2296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014067038 = score(doc=2296,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.219024 = fieldWeight in 2296, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2296)
    0.025987646 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025987646 = score(doc=2296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 2296, 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=2296)
    0.029535891 = product of:
      0.059071783 = sum of:
        0.059071783 = weight(_text_:auskunft in 2296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059071783 = score(doc=2296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19680773 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7916126 = idf(docFreq=134, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3001497 = fieldWeight in 2296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7916126 = idf(docFreq=134, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0019733086 = product of:
      0.0039466172 = sum of:
        0.0039466172 = weight(_text_:information in 2296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039466172 = score(doc=2296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Forschungsgelder sind knapp- immer lauter wird die Frage, nach welchen Kriterien sie gerecht vergeben werden. Zunehmend in den Blickpunkt geraten dabei Methoden, mit denen die wissenschaftliche Leistung von Nationen, Forschungsinstitutionen und Wissenschaftlern scheinbar objektiv anhand ihrer Publikationen gemessen werden kann. Über die »Bibliometric Analysis in Science and Research« diskutierten 130 Teilnehmer aus fünfzehn Ländern auf einer Tagung, die das Forschungszentrum Jülich im Herbst letzten Jahres ausgerichtet hat.
    Content
    "Bibliometriker analysieren Publikationen und deren Beziehungen untereinander; ihre »Werkzeuge« sind mathematische und statistische Verfahren. Sie haben eine Reihe von Indikatoren entwickelt, die immer häufiger herangezogen werden, um wissenschaftliche Leistung zu bewerten. Einig waren sich die Teilnehmer der Jülicher Konferenz darüber, dass die bibliometrische Analyse andere etablierte Bewertungsmethoden nur ergänzen, nicht aber ersetzen kann. Zu diesen zählt beispielsweise das »peer review«, ein Gutachterverfahren: Hier entscheidet jeweils ein Gremium renommierter Fachkollegen darüber, ob ein Forschungsprojekt gefördert oder ob ein Beitrag in einer Fachzeitschrift aufgenommen werden sollte. Kritiker sind überzeugt, dass eine objektive Betrachtung nicht immer gegeben ist. Doch auch die Zitationsanalyse - eine wichtige bibliometrische Methode - ist nicht unumstritten. Wie häufig eine wissenschaftliche Arbeit zitiert wird, muss nicht unbedingt etwas über ihre Qualität aussagen: So zitiert ein Wissenschaftler die These eines Kollegen möglicherweise nur, um sie zu widerlegen. Weltweit führender Anbieter bibliometrischer Daten ist das amerikanischen Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) mit dem »Science Citation Index«, der weltweit größten Datenbank mit bibliometrisch verwertbaren Daten. Zu den bibliometrischen Indikatoren gehört auch der »Impact-Faktor«, der Auskunft darüber gibt, wie häufig die Artikel einer bestimmten Fachzeitschrift in anderen Publikationen zitiert werden. Immer wieder warnten die Tagungsteilnehmer davor, die Bedeutung dieses Faktors zu überschätzen. Ein Problem ist beispielsweise die Ver gleichbarkeit von verschiedenen Forschungsrichtungen. So haben biomedizinische Fachzeitschriften nahezu immer einen höheren Impact-Faktor als Blätter, in denen Ergebnisse aus der physikalischen Grundlagenforschung publiziert werden - ohne dass sich ein Unterschied in Qualität oder Bedeutung feststellen lässt. Der reine Vergleich des Impact-Faktors ist also nur innerhalb eines Fachgebiets möglich-alles andere hieße, Äpfel mit Birnen zu vergleichen. Die Jülicher Konferenz hat erstmals alle Beteiligten - Wissenschaftler, Forschungsmanager und Informationsfachleutezusammengebracht. Veranstaltet wurde die Tagung von der Zentralbibliothek des Forschungszentrums, einer der größten außeruniversitären Spezialbibliotheken in Deutschland. Dazu Rafael Ball, Leiter der Zentralbibliothek: »Die Forschungsförderung braucht ein Notensystem, das die Wissenschaft gerechter als bisher bewertet. Dazu kann die Informationswissenschaft mit der Durchführung bibliometrischer Analysen Hilfestellungleisten.« Fazit der Jülicher Tagung: Die bibliometrische Analyse kann einen wesentlichen, aber begrenzten Beitrag für die Evaluierung von Wissenschaft leisten. Wichtige Faktoren für den Erfolg der Bibliometrie sind eindeutige Vorgaben der Auftraggeber, Transparenz der ermittelten Daten und praxisorientierte Vorgehensweise. Bleibt als Resümee festzuhalten: Man darf die Veröffentlichungen nicht nur zählen, man muss sie lesen! - Der Proceedingsband der Tagung kann im Eigenverlag des Forschungszentrums (Kontakt: R. Relius, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Zentralbibliothek; Telefax 0 24 61/61-6103, Internet <www.fz-juelich.de/zb/verlag>) schriftlich bestellt werden."
  19. Meho, L.I.; Spurgin, K.M.: Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools : an evaluation of data sources and research methods (2005) 0.02 
    0.018161597 = product of:
  0.06810598 = sum of:
    0.012723906 = product of:
      0.025447812 = sum of:
        0.025447812 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025447812 = score(doc=4343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19700313 = fieldWeight in 4343, 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=4343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.025987646 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025987646 = score(doc=4343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 4343, 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=4343)
    0.025447812 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025447812 = score(doc=4343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.19700313 = fieldWeight in 4343, 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=4343)
    0.0039466172 = product of:
      0.0078932345 = sum of:
        0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 4343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0078932345 = score(doc=4343,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4343, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    This study evaluates the data sources and research methods used in earlier studies to rank the research productivity of Library and Information Science (LIS) faculty and schools. In doing so, the study identifies both tools and methods that generate more accurate publication count rankings as weil as databases that should be taken into consideration when conducting comprehensive searches in the literature for research and curricular needs. With a list of 2,625 items published between 1982 and 2002 by 68 faculty members of 18 American Library Association- (ALA-) accredited LIS schools, hundreds of databases were searched. Results show that there are only 10 databases that provide significant coverage of the LIS indexed literature. Results also show that restricting the data sources to one, two, or even three databases leads to inaccurate rankings and erroneous conclusions. Because no database provides comprehensive coverage of the LIS literature, researchers must rely an a wide range of disciplinary and multidisciplinary databases for ranking and other research purposes. The study answers such questions as the following: Is the Association of Library and Information Science Education's (ALISE's) directory of members a reliable tool to identify a complete list of faculty members at LIS schools? How many and which databases are needed in a multifile search to arrive at accurate publication count rankings? What coverage will be achieved using a certain number of databases? Which research areas are well covered by which databases? What alternative methods and tools are available to supplement gaps among databases? Did coverage performance of databases change over time? What counting method should be used when determining what and how many items each LIS faculty and school has published? The authors recommend advanced analysis of research productivity to provide a more detailed assessment of research productivity of authors and programs.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.12, S.1314-1331
  20. Schloegl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Impact and relevance of LIS journals : a scientometric analysis of international and German-language LIS journals - Citation analysis versus reader survey (2004) 0.02 
    0.018161597 = product of:
  0.06810598 = sum of:
    0.012723906 = product of:
      0.025447812 = sum of:
        0.025447812 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025447812 = score(doc=5249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19700313 = fieldWeight in 5249, 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=5249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.025987646 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025987646 = score(doc=5249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.1990817 = fieldWeight in 5249, 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=5249)
    0.025447812 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025447812 = score(doc=5249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.19700313 = fieldWeight in 5249, 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=5249)
    0.0039466172 = product of:
      0.0078932345 = sum of:
        0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 5249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0078932345 = score(doc=5249,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5249, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.13, S.1155-1168

Authors

Languages

  • e 385
  • d 43

Types

  • a 418
  • m 6
  • r 3
  • el 2
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications