Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × author_ss:"Leydesdorff, L."
  1. Leydesdorff, L.; Ivanova, I.A.: Mutual redundancies in interhuman communication systems : steps toward a calculus of processing meaning (2014) 0.01 
    0.011890898 = product of:
  0.08719992 = sum of:
    0.07661104 = sum of:
      0.06255289 = weight(_text_:sign in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06255289 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15260035 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.4202213 = idf(docFreq=71, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.40991318 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.4202213 = idf(docFreq=71, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
      0.014058149 = weight(_text_:29 in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014058149 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1211, 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=1211)
    0.0066474346 = weight(_text_:in in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066474346 = score(doc=1211,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
    0.0039414368 = product of:
      0.0078828735 = sum of:
        0.0078828735 = weight(_text_:science in 1211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0078828735 = score(doc=1211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    The study of interhuman communication requires a more complex framework than Claude E. Shannon's (1948) mathematical theory of communication because "information" is defined in the latter case as meaningless uncertainty. Assuming that meaning cannot be communicated, we extend Shannon's theory by defining mutual redundancy as a positional counterpart of the relational communication of information. Mutual redundancy indicates the surplus of meanings that can be provided to the exchanges in reflexive communications. The information is redundant because it is based on "pure sets" (i.e., without subtraction of mutual information in the overlaps). We show that in the three-dimensional case (e.g., of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations), mutual redundancy is equal to mutual information (Rxyz = Txyz); but when the dimensionality is even, the sign is different. We generalize to the measurement in N dimensions and proceed to the interpretation. Using Niklas Luhmann's (1984-1995) social systems theory and/or Anthony Giddens's (1979, 1984) structuration theory, mutual redundancy can be provided with an interpretation in the sociological case: Different meaning-processing structures code and decode with other algorithms. A surplus of ("absent") options can then be generated that add to the redundancy. Luhmann's "functional (sub)systems" of expectations or Giddens's "rule-resource sets" are positioned mutually, but coupled operationally in events or "instantiated" in actions. Shannon-type information is generated by the mediation, but the "structures" are (re-)positioned toward one another as sets of (potentially counterfactual) expectations. The structural differences among the coding and decoding algorithms provide a source of additional options in reflexive and anticipatory communications.
    Date
    29. 1.2014 16:44:54
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.386-399
  2. Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018) 0.00 
    0.0045065237 = product of:
  0.03304784 = sum of:
    0.0070290747 = product of:
      0.014058149 = sum of:
        0.014058149 = weight(_text_:29 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014058149 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0042042066 = weight(_text_:in in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0042042066 = score(doc=4463,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
    0.02181456 = sum of:
      0.0078828735 = weight(_text_:science in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0078828735 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.013931687 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013931687 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    This article considers the relationships among meaning generation, selection, and the dynamics of discourse from a variety of perspectives ranging from information theory and biology to sociology. Following Husserl's idea of a horizon of meanings in intersubjective communication, we propose a way in which, using Shannon's equations, the generation and selection of meanings from a horizon of possibilities can be considered probabilistically. The information-theoretical dynamics we articulate considers a process of meaning generation within cultural evolution: information is imbued with meaning, and through this process, the number of options for the selection of meaning in discourse proliferates. The redundancy of possible meanings contributes to a codification of expectations within the discourse. Unlike hardwired DNA, the codes of nonbiological systems can coevolve with the variations. Spanning horizons of meaning, the codes structure the communications as selection environments that shape discourses. Discursive knowledge can be considered as meta-coded communication that enables us to translate among differently coded communications. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production can thus infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution by adding options, that is, by increasing redundancy. A calculus of redundancy is presented as an indicator whereby these dynamics of discourse and meaning may be explored empirically.
    Date
    29. 9.2018 11:22:09
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.10, S.1181-1192
  3. Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003) 0.00 
    0.003734472 = product of:
  0.04107919 = sum of:
    0.00797692 = weight(_text_:in in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00797692 = score(doc=4460,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.28515202 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
    0.03310227 = sum of:
      0.016384246 = weight(_text_:science in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016384246 = score(doc=4460,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.016718024 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016718024 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.
    Date
    6.11.2005 19:02:22
  4. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.00 
    0.003595183 = product of:
  0.03954701 = sum of:
    0.0063063093 = weight(_text_:in in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063063093 = score(doc=4186,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.033240702 = sum of:
      0.019309016 = weight(_text_:science in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019309016 = score(doc=4186,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.013931687 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013931687 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.00 
    0.0031331677 = product of:
  0.034464844 = sum of:
    0.0043691397 = weight(_text_:in in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043691397 = score(doc=4681,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.030095704 = sum of:
      0.01337768 = weight(_text_:science in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01337768 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.016718024 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016718024 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
  6. Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction of interdisciplinarity : the development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal Climatic Change, 1977-2013 (2016) 0.00 
    0.0030133515 = product of:
  0.033146866 = sum of:
    0.005561643 = weight(_text_:in in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005561643 = score(doc=3089,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
    0.027585223 = sum of:
      0.013653537 = weight(_text_:science in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013653537 = score(doc=3089,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 3089, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3089)
      0.013931687 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013931687 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Climate change as a complex physical and social issue has gained increasing attention in the natural as well as the social sciences. Climate change research has become more interdisciplinary and even transdisciplinary as a typical Mode-2 science that is also dependent on an application context for its further development. We propose to approach interdisciplinarity as a co-construction of the knowledge base in the reference patterns and the programmatic focus in the editorials in the core journal of the climate-change sciences-Climatic Change-during the period 1977-2013. First, we analyze the knowledge base of the journal and map journal-journal relations on the basis of the references in the articles. Second, we follow the development of the programmatic focus by analyzing the semantics in the editorials. We argue that interdisciplinarity is a result of the co-construction between different agendas: The selection of publications into the knowledge base of the journal, and the adjustment of the programmatic focus to the political context in the editorials. Our results show a widening of the knowledge base from referencing the multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science to citing journals from specialist fields. The programmatic focus follows policy-oriented issues and incorporates public metaphors.
    Date
    24. 8.2016 17:53:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2181-2193
  7. Leydesdorff, L.; Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan : university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations (2009) 0.00 
    0.002986495 = product of:
  0.032851443 = sum of:
    0.006673971 = weight(_text_:in in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006673971 = score(doc=2761,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
    0.026177472 = sum of:
      0.009459447 = weight(_text_:science in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009459447 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
      0.016718024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016718024 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    International co-authorship relations and university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations have hitherto been studied separately. Using Japanese publication data for the 1981-2004 period, we were able to study both kinds of relations in a single design. In the Japanese file, 1,277,030 articles with at least one Japanese address were attributed to the three sectors, and we know additionally whether these papers were coauthored internationally. Using the mutual information in three and four dimensions, respectively, we show that the Japanese Triple-Helix system has been continuously eroded at the national level. However, since the mid-1990s, international coauthorship relations have contributed to a reduction of the uncertainty at the national level. In other words, the national publication system of Japan has developed a capacity to retain surplus value generated internationally. In a final section, we compare these results with an analysis based on similar data for Canada. A relative uncoupling of national university-industry-government relations because of international collaborations is indicated in both countries.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:07:20
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.778-788
  8. Leydesdorff, L.; Zhou, P.: Co-word analysis using the Chinese character set (2008) 0.00 
    0.0027894606 = product of:
  0.020456044 = sum of:
    0.009840704 = product of:
      0.019681407 = sum of:
        0.019681407 = weight(_text_:29 in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019681407 = score(doc=1970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1970, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0050973296 = weight(_text_:in in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050973296 = score(doc=1970,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 1970, 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=1970)
    0.0055180113 = product of:
      0.011036023 = sum of:
        0.011036023 = weight(_text_:science in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011036023 = score(doc=1970,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1970, 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=1970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    Until recently, Chinese texts could not be studied using co-word analysis because the words are not separated by spaces in Chinese (and Japanese). A word can be composed of one or more characters. The online availability of programs that separate Chinese texts makes it possible to analyze them using semantic maps. Chinese characters contain not only information but also meaning. This may enhance the readability of semantic maps. In this study, we analyze 58 words which occur 10 or more times in the 1,652 journal titles of the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database. The word-occurrence matrix is visualized and factor-analyzed.
    Date
    12. 7.2008 18:46:29
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1528-1530
  9. Lucio-Arias, D.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬An indicator of research front activity : measuring intellectual organization as uncertainty reduction in document sets (2009) 0.00 
    0.0026121268 = product of:
  0.019155595 = sum of:
    0.009940612 = product of:
      0.019881224 = sum of:
        0.019881224 = weight(_text_:29 in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019881224 = score(doc=3297,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.2748193 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.00364095 = weight(_text_:in in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00364095 = score(doc=3297,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
    0.005574033 = product of:
      0.011148066 = sum of:
        0.011148066 = weight(_text_:science in 3297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011148066 = score(doc=3297,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 3297, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    When using scientific literature to model scholarly discourse, a research specialty can be operationalized as an evolving set of related documents. Each publication can be expected to contribute to the further development of the specialty at the research front. The specific combinations of title words and cited references in a paper can then be considered as a signature of the knowledge claim in the paper: New words and combinations of words can be expected to represent variation, while each paper is at the same time selectively positioned into the intellectual organization of a field using context-relevant references. Can the mutual information among these three dimensions - title words, cited references, and sequence numbers - be used as an indicator of the extent to which intellectual organization structures the uncertainty prevailing at a research front? The effect of the discovery of nanotubes (1991) on the previously existing field of fullerenes is used as a test case. Thereafter, this method is applied to science studies with a focus on scientometrics using various sample delineations. An emerging research front about citation analysis can be indicated.
    Date
    2. 2.2010 19:29:29
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.12, S.2488-2498
  10. Chen, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays : a new method of publication portfolio analysis (2014) 0.00 
    0.0024627342 = product of:
  0.01806005 = sum of:
    0.0070290747 = product of:
      0.014058149 = sum of:
        0.014058149 = weight(_text_:29 in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014058149 = score(doc=1200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1200, 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=1200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0042042066 = weight(_text_:in in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0042042066 = score(doc=1200,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
    0.0068267686 = product of:
      0.013653537 = sum of:
        0.013653537 = weight(_text_:science in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013653537 = score(doc=1200,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    Portfolio analysis of the publication profile of a unit of interest, ranging from individuals and organizations to a scientific field or interdisciplinary programs, aims to inform analysts and decision makers about the position of the unit, where it has been, and where it may go in a complex adaptive environment. A portfolio analysis may aim to identify the gap between the current position of an organization and a goal that it intends to achieve or identify competencies of multiple institutions. We introduce a new visual analytic method for analyzing, comparing, and contrasting characteristics of publication portfolios. The new method introduces a novel design of dual-map thematic overlays on global maps of science. Each publication portfolio can be added as one layer of dual-map overlays over 2 related, but distinct, global maps of science: one for citing journals and the other for cited journals. We demonstrate how the new design facilitates a portfolio analysis in terms of patterns emerging from the distributions of citation threads and the dynamics of trajectories as a function of space and time. We first demonstrate the analysis of portfolios defined on a single source article. Then we contrast publication portfolios of multiple comparable units of interest; namely, colleges in universities and corporate research organizations. We also include examples of overlays of scientific fields. We expect that our method will provide new insights to portfolio analysis.
    Date
    29. 1.2014 16:38:28
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.334-351
  11. Leydesdorff, L.; Bihui, J.: Mapping the Chinese Science Citation Database in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations (2005) 0.00 
    0.0017443313 = product of:
  0.019187644 = sum of:
    0.006673971 = weight(_text_:in in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006673971 = score(doc=4813,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
    0.012513674 = product of:
      0.025027348 = sum of:
        0.025027348 = weight(_text_:science in 4813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025027348 = score(doc=4813,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.4619987 = fieldWeight in 4813, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Methods developed for mapping the journal structure contained in aggregated journal-journal citations in the Science Citation Index (SCI; Thomson ISI, 2002) are applied to the Chinese Science Citation Database of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This database covered 991 journals in 2001, of which only 37 originally had English titles; only 31 of which were covered by the SCI. Using factor-analytical and graph-analytical techniques, the authors show that the journal relations are dually structured. The main structure is the intellectual organization of the journals in journal groups (as in the international SCI), but the university-based journals provide an institutional layer that orients this structure towards practical ends (e.g., agriculture). This mechanism of integration is further distinguished from the role of general science journals. The Chinese Science Citation Database thus exhibits the characteristics of "Mode 2" or transdisciplinary science in the production of scientific knowledge more than its Western counterpart does. The contexts of application lead to correlation among the components.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.14, S.1469-1479
  12. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016) 0.00 
    0.0016747935 = product of:
  0.018422728 = sum of:
    0.0050450475 = weight(_text_:in in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050450475 = score(doc=2779,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
    0.01337768 = product of:
      0.02675536 = sum of:
        0.02675536 = weight(_text_:science in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02675536 = score(doc=2779,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
    Aid
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
  13. Leydesdorff, L.; Shin, J.C.: How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts : fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines (2011) 0.00 
    0.0016714828 = product of:
  0.01838631 = sum of:
    0.008828833 = weight(_text_:in in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008828833 = score(doc=4466,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.31560543 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
    0.009557477 = product of:
      0.019114954 = sum of:
        0.019114954 = weight(_text_:science in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019114954 = score(doc=4466,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Fractional counting of citations can improve on ranking of multidisciplinary research units (such as universities) by normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of differences in citation behavior. Furthermore, normalization in terms of citing papers abolishes the unsolved questions in scientometrics about the delineation of fields of science in terms of journals and normalization when comparing among different (sets of) journals. Using publication and citation data of seven Korean research universities, we demonstrate the advantages and the differences in the rankings, explain the possible statistics, and suggest ways to visualize the differences in (citing) audiences in terms of a network.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.6, S.1146-1155
  14. Leydesdorff, L.: Dynamic and evolutionary updates of classificatory schemes in scientific journal structures (2002) 0.00 
    0.0016255802 = product of:
  0.017881382 = sum of:
    0.008323904 = weight(_text_:in in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008323904 = score(doc=1249,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.29755569 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
    0.009557477 = product of:
      0.019114954 = sum of:
        0.019114954 = weight(_text_:science in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019114954 = score(doc=1249,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Can the inclusion of new journals in the Science Citation Index be used for the indication of structural change in the database, and how can this change be compared with reorganizations of reiations among previously included journals? Change in the number of journals (n) is distinguished from change in the number of journal categories (m). Although the number of journals can be considered as a given at each moment in time, the number of journal categories is based an a reconstruction that is time-stamped ex post. The reflexive reconstruction is in need of an update when new information becomes available in a next year. Implications of this shift towards an evolutionary perspective are specified.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.12, S.987-994
  15. Zhou, P.; Su, X.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences (2010) 0.00 
    0.0015479109 = product of:
  0.017027019 = sum of:
    0.0075675715 = weight(_text_:in in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075675715 = score(doc=3580,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
    0.009459447 = product of:
      0.018918894 = sum of:
        0.018918894 = weight(_text_:science in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018918894 = score(doc=3580,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    We argue that the communication structures in the Chinese social sciences have not yet been sufficiently reformed. Citation patterns among Chinese domestic journals in three subject areas - political science and Marxism, library and information science, and economics - are compared with their counterparts internationally. Like their colleagues in the natural and life sciences, Chinese scholars in the social sciences provide fewer references to journal publications than their international counterparts; like their international colleagues, social scientists provide fewer references than natural sciences. The resulting citation networks, therefore, are sparse. Nevertheless, the citation structures clearly suggest that the Chinese social sciences are far less specialized in terms of disciplinary delineations than their international counterparts. Marxism studies are more established than political science in China. In terms of the impact of the Chinese political system on academic fields, disciplines closely related to the political system are less specialized than those weakly related. In the discussion section, we explore reasons that may cause the current stagnation and provide policy recommendations.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1360-1376
  16. Zhou, P.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparison between the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database and the Science Citation Index in terms of journal hierarchies and interjournal citation relations (2007) 0.00 
    0.001523171 = product of:
  0.01675488 = sum of:
    0.0061788964 = weight(_text_:in in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061788964 = score(doc=70,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
    0.010575985 = product of:
      0.02115197 = sum of:
        0.02115197 = weight(_text_:science in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02115197 = score(doc=70,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    The journal structure in the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database (CSTPCD) is analyzed from three perspectives: the database level, the specialty level, and the institutional level (i.e., university journals vs. journals issued by the Chinese Academy of Sciences). The results are compared with those for (Chinese) journals included in the Science Citation Index (SCI). The frequency of journal-journal citation relations in the CSTPCD is an order of magnitude lower than in the SCI. Chinese journals, especially high-quality journals, prefer to cite international journals rather than domestic ones; however, Chinese journals do not get an equivalent reception from their international counterparts. The international visibility of Chinese journals is low, but varies among fields of science. Journals of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have a better reception in the international scientific community than university journals.
    Object
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.2, S.223-236
  17. Leydesdorff, L.; Salah, A.A.A.: Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index : the journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "digital humanities" as a topic (2010) 0.00 
    0.0014200939 = product of:
  0.015621033 = sum of:
    0.0050450475 = weight(_text_:in in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050450475 = score(doc=3436,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
    0.010575985 = product of:
      0.02115197 = sum of:
        0.02115197 = weight(_text_:science in 3436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02115197 = score(doc=3436,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 3436, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    The possibilities of using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) for journal mapping have not been sufficiently recognized because of the absence of a Journal Citations Report (JCR) for this database. A quasi-JCR for the A&HCI ([2008]) was constructed from the data contained in the Web of Science and is used for the evaluation of two journals as examples: Leonardo and Art Journal. The maps on the basis of the aggregated journal-journal citations within this domain can be compared with maps including references to journals in the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Art journals are cited by (social) science journals more than by other art journals, but these journals draw upon one another in terms of their own references. This cultural impact in terms of being cited is not found when documents with a topic such as digital humanities are analyzed. This community of practice functions more as an intellectual organizer than a journal.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.4, S.787-801
  18. Leydesdorff, L.; Goldstone, R.L.: Interdisciplinarity at the journal and specialty level : the changing knowledge bases of the journal cognitive science (2014) 0.00 
    0.0013933545 = product of:
  0.015326899 = sum of:
    0.007134775 = weight(_text_:in in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007134775 = score(doc=1187,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1187, 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=1187)
    0.008192123 = product of:
      0.016384246 = sum of:
        0.016384246 = weight(_text_:science in 1187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016384246 = score(doc=1187,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 1187, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Using the referencing patterns in articles in Cognitive Science over three decades, we analyze the knowledge base of this literature in terms of its changing disciplinary composition. Three periods are distinguished: (A) construction of the interdisciplinary space in the 1980s, (B) development of an interdisciplinary orientation in the 1990s, and (C) reintegration into "cognitive psychology" in the 2000s. The fluidity and fuzziness of the interdisciplinary delineations in the different visualizations can be reduced and clarified using factor analysis. We also explore newly available routines ("CorText") to analyze this development in terms of "tubes" using an alluvial map and compare the results with an animation (using "Visone"). The historical specificity of this development can be compared with the development of "artificial intelligence" into an integrated specialty during this same period. Interdisciplinarity should be defined differently at the level of journals and of specialties.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.164-177
  19. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.00 
    0.0013745119 = product of:
  0.01511963 = sum of:
    0.0063063093 = weight(_text_:in in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0063063093 = score(doc=3231,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.008813321 = product of:
      0.017626641 = sum of:
        0.017626641 = weight(_text_:science in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017626641 = score(doc=3231,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100
  20. Leydesdorff, L.; Moya-Anegón, F. de; Nooy, W. de: Aggregated journal-journal citation relations in scopus and web of science matched and compared in terms of networks, maps, and interactive overlays (2016) 0.00 
    0.0013504329 = product of:
  0.014854761 = sum of:
    0.006971888 = weight(_text_:in in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006971888 = score(doc=3090,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
    0.0078828735 = product of:
      0.015765747 = sum of:
        0.015765747 = weight(_text_:science in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015765747 = score(doc=3090,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 3090, 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=3090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    We compare the network of aggregated journal-journal citation relations provided by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 of the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) with similar data based on Scopus 2012. First, global and overlay maps were developed for the 2 sets separately. Using fuzzy-string matching and ISSN numbers, we were able to match 10,524 journal names between the 2 sets: 96.4% of the 10,936 journals contained in JCR, or 51.2% of the 20,554 journals covered by Scopus. Network analysis was pursued on the set of journals shared between the 2 databases and the 2 sets of unique journals. Citations among the shared journals are more comprehensively covered in JCR than in Scopus, so the network in JCR is denser and more connected than in Scopus. The ranking of shared journals in terms of indegree (i.e., numbers of citing journals) or total citations is similar in both databases overall (Spearman rank correlation ??>?0.97), but some individual journals rank very differently. Journals that are unique to Scopus seem to be less important-they are citing shared journals rather than being cited by them-but the humanities are covered better in Scopus than in JCR.
    Object
    Web of science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.9, S.2194-2211

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 86
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes