Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0035609852 = product of:
  0.02136591 = sum of:
    0.007685182 = product of:
      0.023055546 = sum of:
        0.023055546 = weight(_text_:p in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023055546 = score(doc=3809,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.29191923 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.0055836807 = weight(_text_:des in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055836807 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06083074 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.091790445 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.0036329033 = weight(_text_:der in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0036329033 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.07403961 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
    0.004464144 = product of:
      0.008928288 = sum of:
        0.008928288 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008928288 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(4/24)

Abstract

This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Footnote

Teil eines Special Issue: Social Media Metrics in Scholarly Communication: exploring tweets, blogs, likes and other altmetrics. Der Beitrag ist frei verfügbar.

0.0025573457 = product of:
  0.061376292 = sum of:
    0.061376292 = weight(_text_:1960 in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061376292 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15622076 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Abstract

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the field's market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.

5.261045E-4 = product of:
  0.012626506 = sum of:
    0.012626506 = product of:
      0.025253013 = sum of:
        0.025253013 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025253013 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

3.1282406E-4 = product of:
  0.0075077773 = sum of:
    0.0075077773 = product of:
      0.015015555 = sum of:
        0.015015555 = weight(_text_:29 in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015015555 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

19. 7.2009 12:20:29

2.6145522E-4 = product of:
  0.006274925 = sum of:
    0.006274925 = product of:
      0.018824775 = sum of:
        0.018824775 = weight(_text_:p in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824775 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

2.1787935E-4 = product of:
  0.0052291043 = sum of:
    0.0052291043 = product of:
      0.015687313 = sum of:
        0.015687313 = weight(_text_:p in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015687313 = score(doc=2769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)