-
Cronin, B.: Semiotics and evaluative bibliometrics (2000)
0.01
0.006068827 = product of:
0.0667571 = sum of:
0.06255289 = product of:
0.12510578 = sum of:
0.12510578 = weight(_text_:sign in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12510578 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15260035 = queryWeight, product of:
7.4202213 = idf(docFreq=71, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.81982636 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.4202213 = idf(docFreq=71, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0042042066 = weight(_text_:in in 4542) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0042042066 = score(doc=4542,freq=2.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4542, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4542)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- Abstract
- The reciprocal relationship between bibliographic references and citations in the context of the scholarly communication system is examined. Semiotic analysis of referencing behaviours and citation counting reveals the complexity of prevailing sign systems and associated symbolic practices.
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: ¬The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies (2008)
0.00
0.00465589 = product of:
0.034143195 = sum of:
0.0050973296 = weight(_text_:in in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0050973296 = score(doc=1377,freq=6.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
0.021242218 = weight(_text_:computer in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021242218 = score(doc=1377,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0751567 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
0.0078036464 = product of:
0.015607293 = sum of:
0.015607293 = weight(_text_:science in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015607293 = score(doc=1377,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
- Abstract
- The authors describe a large-scale, longitudinal citation analysis of intellectual trading between information studies and cognate disciplines. The results of their investigation reveal the extent to which information studies draws on and, in turn, contributes to the ideational substrates of other academic domains. Their data show that the field has become a more successful exporter of ideas as well as less introverted than was previously the case. In the last decade, information studies has begun to contribute significantly to the literatures of such disciplines as computer science and engineering on the one hand and business and management on the other, while also drawing more heavily on those same literatures.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.551-564
-
Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Knowledge management : Semantic drift or conceptual shift? (2000)
0.00
0.0043484843 = product of:
0.047833327 = sum of:
0.0042042066 = weight(_text_:in in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0042042066 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
0.04362912 = sum of:
0.015765747 = weight(_text_:science in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015765747 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
0.027863374 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027863374 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- Date
- 31. 7.2001 20:22:57
- Footnote
- Thematisierung der Verschiebung des Verständnisses von Wissensmanagement; vgl. auch: Day, R.E.: Totality and representation: a history of knowledge management ... in: JASIS 52(2001) no.9, S.725-735
- Source
- Journal of education for library and information science. 41(2000) no.?, S.294-306
-
Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Cronin, B.: ¬A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years (2012)
0.00
0.0041775177 = product of:
0.03063513 = sum of:
0.0075792414 = weight(_text_:in in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0075792414 = score(doc=244,freq=26.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.27093613 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
0.015173013 = weight(_text_:computer in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015173013 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0751567 = queryWeight, product of:
3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.20188503 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
0.0078828735 = product of:
0.015765747 = sum of:
0.015765747 = weight(_text_:science in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015765747 = score(doc=244,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.5, S.997-1016
-
Cronin, B.: Bowling alone together : academic writing as distributed cognition (2004)
0.00
0.0038732048 = product of:
0.028403502 = sum of:
0.011246519 = product of:
0.022493038 = sum of:
0.022493038 = weight(_text_:29 in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022493038 = score(doc=2265,freq=2.0), product of:
0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.008238529 = weight(_text_:in in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008238529 = score(doc=2265,freq=12.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.29450375 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
0.008918453 = product of:
0.017836906 = sum of:
0.017836906 = weight(_text_:science in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017836906 = score(doc=2265,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.3292649 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
- Abstract
- The twentieth century saw the progressive collectivization of science-dramatic growth in teamwork in general and large-scale collaboration in particular. Cognitive partnering in the conduct of research and scholarship has become commonplace, and this trend is reflected in rates of co-authorship and sub-authorship collaboration. The effects of these developments an academic writing are discussed and theorized in terms of distributed cognition.
- Date
- 6. 6.2004 21:19:29
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.557-560
-
Cronin, B.; Shaw, D.; LaBarre, K.: Visible, Less Visible, and Invisible Work : Patterns of Collaboration in 20th Century Chemistry (2004)
0.00
0.0033034056 = product of:
0.024224974 = sum of:
0.009840704 = product of:
0.019681407 = sum of:
0.019681407 = weight(_text_:29 in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019681407 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0065806243 = weight(_text_:in in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0065806243 = score(doc=2094,freq=10.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
0.0078036464 = product of:
0.015607293 = sum of:
0.015607293 = weight(_text_:science in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015607293 = score(doc=2094,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
- Abstract
- We chronicle the use of acknowledgments in 20th century chemistry by analyzing and classifying over 2,000 specimens covering a 100-year period. Our results show that acknowledgment has gradually established itself as a constitutive element of academic writing- one that provides a revealing insight into the structural nature of subauthorship collaboration in science. Complementary data an rates of coauthorship are also presented to highlight the growing importance of teamwork and the increasing division of labor in contemporary chemistry. The results of this study are compared with the findings of a parallel study of collaboration in both the social sciences and the humanities.
- Date
- 29. 8.2004 9:42:14
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.2, S.160-168
-
Cronin, B.: Hyperauthorship : a postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? (2001)
0.00
0.0028969916 = product of:
0.021244604 = sum of:
0.009840704 = product of:
0.019681407 = sum of:
0.019681407 = weight(_text_:29 in 5909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019681407 = score(doc=5909,freq=2.0), product of:
0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5909, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5909)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0058858884 = weight(_text_:in in 5909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0058858884 = score(doc=5909,freq=8.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 5909, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5909)
0.0055180113 = product of:
0.011036023 = sum of:
0.011036023 = weight(_text_:science in 5909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011036023 = score(doc=5909,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 5909, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5909)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
- Abstract
- Classical assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments of authorship (the standard model) are being challenged by developments in scientific collaboration and multiple authorship. In the biomedical research community, multiple authorship has increased to such an extent that the trustworthiness of the scientific communication system has been called into question. Documented abuses, such as honorific authorship, have serious implications in terms of the acknowledgment of authority, allocation of credit, and assigning of accountability. Within the biomedical world it has been proposed that authors be replaced by lists of contributors (the radical model), whose specific inputs to a given study would be recorded unambiguously. The wider implications of the 'hyperauthorship' phenomenon for scholarly publication are considered
- Date
- 29. 9.2001 14:01:58
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.7, S.558-569
-
Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Who dunnit? : Metatags and hyperauthorship (2001)
0.00
0.0027894606 = product of:
0.020456044 = sum of:
0.009840704 = product of:
0.019681407 = sum of:
0.019681407 = weight(_text_:29 in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019681407 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0050973296 = weight(_text_:in in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0050973296 = score(doc=6031,freq=6.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
0.0055180113 = product of:
0.011036023 = sum of:
0.011036023 = weight(_text_:science in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011036023 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
- Abstract
- Multiple authorship is a topic of growing concern in a number of scientific domains. When, as is increasingly common, scholarly articles and clinical reports have scores or even hundreds of authors-what Cronin (in press) has termed "hyperauthorship" -the precise nature of each individual's contribution is often masked. A notation that describes collaborators' contributions and allows those contributions to be tracked in, and across, texts (and over time) offers a solution. Such a notation should be useful, easy to use, and acceptable to communities of scientists. Drawing on earlier work, we present a proposal for an XML-like "contribution" mark-up, and discuss the potential benefits and possible drawbacks
- Date
- 29. 9.2001 14:03:06
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.770-773
-
Cronin, B.: Vernacular and vehicular language (2009)
0.00
0.0027763986 = product of:
0.06108077 = sum of:
0.06108077 = sum of:
0.022072045 = weight(_text_:science in 7192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022072045 = score(doc=7192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 7192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7192)
0.03900872 = weight(_text_:22 in 7192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03900872 = score(doc=7192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7192)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 11:44:11
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.433
-
Cronin, B.: Thinking about data (2013)
0.00
0.0027763986 = product of:
0.06108077 = sum of:
0.06108077 = sum of:
0.022072045 = weight(_text_:science in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022072045 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
0.03900872 = weight(_text_:22 in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03900872 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 16:18:36
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.435-436
-
Cronin, B.: ¬The writing on the wall (2015)
0.00
0.0023797702 = product of:
0.052354943 = sum of:
0.052354943 = sum of:
0.018918894 = weight(_text_:science in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018918894 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 7297, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7297)
0.03343605 = weight(_text_:22 in 7297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03343605 = score(doc=7297,freq=2.0), product of:
0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 7297, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7297)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Date
- 26. 4.2015 19:27:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.5, S.873-875
-
Cronin, B.: ¬The sociological turn in information science (2009)
0.00
0.0018115302 = product of:
0.019926831 = sum of:
0.0058255196 = weight(_text_:in in 3655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0058255196 = score(doc=3655,freq=6.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 3655, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3655)
0.0141013125 = product of:
0.028202625 = sum of:
0.028202625 = weight(_text_:science in 3655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028202625 = score(doc=3655,freq=10.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.52061355 = fieldWeight in 3655, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3655)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- Abstract
- This paper explores the history of 'the social' in information science. It traces the influence of social scientific thinking on the development of the field's intellectual base. The continuing appropriation of both theoretical and methodological insights from domains such as social studies of science, science and technology studies, and socio-technical systems is discussed.
- Source
- Information science in transition, Ed.: A. Gilchrist
-
Snyder, H.; Cronin, B.; Davenport, E.: What's the use of citation? : Citation analysis as a literature topic in selected disciplines of the social sciences (1995)
0.00
0.001565995 = product of:
0.017225945 = sum of:
0.005640535 = weight(_text_:in in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005640535 = score(doc=1825,freq=10.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
0.011585411 = product of:
0.023170821 = sum of:
0.023170821 = weight(_text_:science in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023170821 = score(doc=1825,freq=12.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.42772767 = fieldWeight in 1825, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1825)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a study to investigate the place and role of citation analysis in selected disciplines in the social sciences, including library and information science. 5 core library and information science periodicals: Journal of documentation; Library quarterly; Journal of the American Society for Information Science; College and research libraries; and the Journal of information science, were studed to determine the percentage of articles devoted to citation analysis and develop an indictive typology to categorize the major foci of research being conducted under the rubric of citation analysis. Similar analysis was conducted for periodicals in other social sciences disciplines. Demonstrates how the rubric can be used to dertermine how citatiion analysis is applied within library and information science and other disciplines. By isolating citation from bibliometrics in general, this work is differentiated from other, previous studies. Analysis of data from a 10 year sample of transdisciplinary social sciences literature suggests that 2 application areas predominate: the validity of citation as an evaluation tool; and impact or performance studies of authors, periodicals, and institutions
- Source
- Journal of information science. 21(1995) no.2, S.75-85
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Timelines of creativity : A study of intellectual innovators in information science (2007)
0.00
0.0015383556 = product of:
0.016921911 = sum of:
0.0058858884 = weight(_text_:in in 480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0058858884 = score(doc=480,freq=8.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 480, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=480)
0.011036023 = product of:
0.022072045 = sum of:
0.022072045 = weight(_text_:science in 480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022072045 = score(doc=480,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 480, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=480)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- Abstract
- We explore the relationship between creativity and both chronological and professional age in information science using a novel bibliometric approach that allows us to capture the shape of a scholar's career. Our approach draws on D.W. Galenson's (2006) analyses of artistic creativity, notably his distinction between conceptual and experimental innovation, and also H.C. Lehman's (1953) seminal study of the relationship between stage of career and outstanding performance. The data presented here suggest that creativity is expressed in different ways, at different times, and with different intensities in academic information science.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.1948-1959
-
Cronin, B.: Library and information science in context (1998)
0.00
0.0014222894 = product of:
0.015645184 = sum of:
0.00672673 = weight(_text_:in in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00672673 = score(doc=1416,freq=8.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 1416, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1416)
0.008918453 = product of:
0.017836906 = sum of:
0.017836906 = weight(_text_:science in 1416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017836906 = score(doc=1416,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.3292649 = fieldWeight in 1416, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1416)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- Abstract
- State of the art review of the ways in which the library and information science (LIS) profession is adapting to the growing informatization of society, the emergence of an information society and how librarians and information scientists are positioning themselves as players in an information society, characterized by metaphors such as 'information superhighway' and 'Worldwide Library'. Identifies major change drivers and considers the kinds of strategic responses being made by, and required of, the LIS field in the face of pervasive technologization and shifting social practices
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Applying the author affiliation index to library and information science journals (2008)
0.00
0.0012987452 = product of:
0.014286196 = sum of:
0.003363365 = weight(_text_:in in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003363365 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
0.010922831 = product of:
0.021845661 = sum of:
0.021845661 = weight(_text_:science in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021845661 = score(doc=2361,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- Abstract
- The authors use a novel method - the Author Affiliation Index (AAI) - to determine whether faculty at the top-10 North American library and information science (LIS) programs have a disproportionate presence in the premier journals of the field. The study finds that LIS may be both too small and too interdisciplinary a domain for the AAI to provide reliable results.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.11, S.1861-1865
-
Cronin, B.; Franks, S.: Trading cultures : Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article's paratext (2006)
0.00
0.0012570011 = product of:
0.013827012 = sum of:
0.0075207134 = weight(_text_:in in 5105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0075207134 = score(doc=5105,freq=10.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 5105, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5105)
0.0063062985 = product of:
0.012612597 = sum of:
0.012612597 = weight(_text_:science in 5105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012612597 = score(doc=5105,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 5105, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5105)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- Abstract
- Formal and informal modes of collaboration in life sciences research were explored paratextually. The bylines and acknowledgments of more than 1,000 research articles in the journal Cell were analyzed to reveal the strength of collegiate ties and the importance of material and ideational trading between both individuals and labs. Intense coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration were shown to be defining features of contemporary research in the life sciences.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.14, S.1909-1918
-
Lee, C.J.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Zhang, G.; Cronin, B.: Bias in peer review (2013)
0.00
0.0012566923 = product of:
0.013823615 = sum of:
0.007134775 = weight(_text_:in in 525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007134775 = score(doc=525,freq=16.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 525, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=525)
0.00668884 = product of:
0.01337768 = sum of:
0.01337768 = weight(_text_:science in 525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01337768 = score(doc=525,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 525, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=525)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- Abstract
- Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications of research on bias in peer review. This review provides a brief description of the function, history, and scope of peer review; articulates and critiques the conception of bias unifying research on bias in peer review; characterizes and examines the empirical, methodological, and normative claims of bias in peer review research; and assesses possible alternatives to the status quo. We close by identifying ways to expand conceptions and studies of bias to contend with the complexity of social interactions among actors involved directly and indirectly in peer review.
- Series
- Advances in information science
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.2-17
-
Cronin, B.: Acknowledgement trends in the research literature of information science (2001)
0.00
0.0012431791 = product of:
0.01367497 = sum of:
0.004756517 = weight(_text_:in in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004756517 = score(doc=4488,freq=4.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
0.008918453 = product of:
0.017836906 = sum of:
0.017836906 = weight(_text_:science in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017836906 = score(doc=4488,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.3292649 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- 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.
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006)
0.00
0.001116529 = product of:
0.012281818 = sum of:
0.003363365 = weight(_text_:in in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003363365 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
0.008918453 = product of:
0.017836906 = sum of:
0.017836906 = weight(_text_:science in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017836906 = score(doc=196,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.3292649 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- Abstract
- The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1275-1278
