Search (54 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Rousseau, R."
  1. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Introduction to informetrics : quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science (1990) 0.01 
    0.011245865 = product of:
  0.049481805 = sum of:
    0.011049435 = weight(_text_:und in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011049435 = score(doc=1515,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04558063 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.24241515 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
    0.011049435 = weight(_text_:und in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011049435 = score(doc=1515,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04558063 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.24241515 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
    0.009840704 = product of:
      0.019681407 = sum of:
        0.019681407 = weight(_text_:29 in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019681407 = score(doc=1515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1515, 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=1515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0029429442 = weight(_text_:in in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029429442 = score(doc=1515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
    0.014599286 = product of:
      0.029198572 = sum of:
        0.029198572 = weight(_text_:science in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029198572 = score(doc=1515,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.5389985 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22727273 = coord(5/22)
    Classification
    AN 70400 Allgemeines / Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Informationswissenschaft / Bibliothekswesen / Bibliotheksverwaltung / Bibliotheksanalyse, -statistik
    COMPASS
    Information science / Statistical mathematics
    Date
    29. 2.2008 19:02:46
    LCSH
    Information science / Statistical methods
    Library science / Statistical methods
    RVK
    AN 70400 Allgemeines / Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Informationswissenschaft / Bibliothekswesen / Bibliotheksverwaltung / Bibliotheksanalyse, -statistik
    Subject
    Information science / Statistical mathematics
    Information science / Statistical methods
    Library science / Statistical methods
  2. Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.: Simulating growth of the h-index (2009) 0.00 
    0.0045464803 = product of:
  0.033340853 = sum of:
    0.0065806243 = weight(_text_:in in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065806243 = score(doc=2717,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
    0.021242218 = weight(_text_:computer in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021242218 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0751567 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.28263903 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
    0.0055180113 = product of:
      0.011036023 = sum of:
        0.011036023 = weight(_text_:science in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011036023 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    Temporal growth of the h-index in a diachronous cumulative time series is predicted to be linear by Hirsch (2005), whereas other models predict a concave increase. Actual data generally yield a linear growth or S-shaped growth. We study the h-index's growth in computer simulations of the publication-citation process. In most simulations the h-index grows linearly in time. Only occasionally does an S-shape occur, while in our simulations a concave increase is very rare. The latter is often signalled by the occurrence of plateaus - periods of h-index stagnation. Several parameters and their influence on the h-index's growth are determined and discussed.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.2, S.410-417
  3. Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012) 0.00 
    0.0043484843 = product of:
  0.047833327 = sum of:
    0.0042042066 = weight(_text_:in in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0042042066 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
    0.04362912 = sum of:
      0.015765747 = weight(_text_:science in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015765747 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
      0.027863374 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027863374 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, 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=4992)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Date
    14. 2.2012 12:53:22
    Footnote
    This article corrects: Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies in: JASIST 62(2011) no,8, S.1637-1644.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429
  4. Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Citation analysis and the development of science : a case study using articles by some Nobel prize winners (2014) 0.00 
    0.003671709 = product of:
  0.026925866 = sum of:
    0.011246519 = product of:
      0.022493038 = sum of:
        0.022493038 = weight(_text_:29 in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022493038 = score(doc=1197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1197, 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=1197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.004756517 = weight(_text_:in in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004756517 = score(doc=1197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 1197, 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=1197)
    0.010922831 = product of:
      0.021845661 = sum of:
        0.021845661 = weight(_text_:science in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021845661 = score(doc=1197,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 1197, 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=1197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    Using citation data of articles written by some Nobel Prize winners in physics, we show that concave, convex, and straight curves represent different types of interactions between old ideas and new insights. These cases illustrate different diffusion characteristics of academic knowledge, depending on the nature of the knowledge in the new publications. This work adds to the study of the development of science and links this development to citation analysis.
    Date
    29. 1.2014 16:31:35
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.281-289
  5. Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006) 0.00 
    0.0030677312 = product of:
  0.033745043 = sum of:
    0.0075675715 = weight(_text_:in in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075675715 = score(doc=5270,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
    0.026177472 = sum of:
      0.009459447 = weight(_text_:science in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009459447 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.016718024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016718024 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:26:24
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.342-346
  6. Rousseau, R.: Timelines in citation research (2006) 0.00 
    0.003042182 = product of:
  0.022309333 = sum of:
    0.011246519 = product of:
      0.022493038 = sum of:
        0.022493038 = weight(_text_:29 in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022493038 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1746, 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=1746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.004756517 = weight(_text_:in in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004756517 = score(doc=1746,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 1746, 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=1746)
    0.0063062985 = product of:
      0.012612597 = sum of:
        0.012612597 = weight(_text_:science in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012612597 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1746, 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=1746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    The timeline used in ISI's Journal Citation Reports (JCR; Thomson ISI, formerly the Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) for half-life calculations, is not a timeline for (average) cited age. These two timelines are shifted over half a year.
    Date
    18. 8.2006 14:29:40
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1404-1405
  7. Colebunders, R.; Kenyon, C.; Rousseau, R.: Increase in numbers and proportions of review articles in Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, and oncology (2014) 0.00 
    0.0027680984 = product of:
  0.020299388 = sum of:
    0.008434889 = product of:
      0.016869778 = sum of:
        0.016869778 = weight(_text_:29 in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016869778 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.007134775 = weight(_text_:in in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007134775 = score(doc=1189,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
    0.0047297236 = product of:
      0.009459447 = sum of:
        0.009459447 = weight(_text_:science in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009459447 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    This article examines whether the absolute and relative numbers of reviews are increasing in the following three subfields of medical sciences: Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, and Oncology. It further examines if reviews are cited more frequently than are "normal" articles. All research questions are answered affirmatively: The absolute as well as the relative numbers of reviews in these three subfields are indeed increasing. In addition, reviews in these fields are cited more frequently than are normal articles: about 70% more often than are "normal" articles in Infectious Diseases and Oncology and about 50% more often in Tropical Medicine. The article discusses possible reasons for this increase and concludes that medical journals should strive to achieve an optimal balance between review papers and original articles.
    Date
    29. 1.2014 15:56:36
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.201-205
  8. Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: Yield sequences as journal attractivity indicators : "payback times" for Science and Nature (2008) 0.00 
    0.0027537819 = product of:
  0.0201944 = sum of:
    0.008434889 = product of:
      0.016869778 = sum of:
        0.016869778 = weight(_text_:29 in 1737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016869778 = score(doc=1737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1737, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0035673876 = weight(_text_:in in 1737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035673876 = score(doc=1737,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1737, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1737)
    0.008192123 = product of:
      0.016384246 = sum of:
        0.016384246 = weight(_text_:science in 1737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016384246 = score(doc=1737,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 1737, 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=1737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The yield period of a journal is defined as the time needed to accumulate the same number of citations as the number of references included during the period of study. Yield sequences are proposed as journal attractivity indicators describing dynamic characteristics of a journal. This paper aims to investigate their use. Design/methodology/approach - As a case study the yield sequences of the journals Nature and Science from 1955 onward are determined. Similarities and dissimilarities between these sequences are discussed and factors affecting yield periods are determined. Findings - The study finds that yield sequences make dynamic aspects of a journal visible, as reflected through citations. Exceptional circumstances (here the publication of Laemmli's paper in 1970 in the journal Nature) become clearly visible. The average number of references per article, the citation distribution and the size of the database used to collect citations are factors influencing yield sequences. Originality/value - A new dynamic indicator for the study of journals is introduced.
    Date
    21. 3.2008 14:29:54
    Object
    Science
  9. Shi, D.; Rousseau, R.; Yang, L.; Li, J.: ¬A journal's impact factor is influenced by changes in publication delays of citing journals (2017) 0.00 
    0.002750288 = product of:
  0.020168778 = sum of:
    0.008434889 = product of:
      0.016869778 = sum of:
        0.016869778 = weight(_text_:29 in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016869778 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0050450475 = weight(_text_:in in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050450475 = score(doc=3441,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3441, 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=3441)
    0.00668884 = product of:
      0.01337768 = sum of:
        0.01337768 = weight(_text_:science in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01337768 = score(doc=3441,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 3441, 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=3441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    In this article we describe another problem with journal impact factors by showing that one journal's impact factor is dependent on other journals' publication delays. The proposed theoretical model predicts a monotonically decreasing function of the impact factor as a function of publication delay, on condition that the citation curve of the journal is monotone increasing during the publication window used in the calculation of the journal impact factor; otherwise, this function has a reversed U shape. Our findings based on simulations are verified by examining three journals in the information sciences: the Journal of Informetrics, Scientometrics, and the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
    Date
    16.11.2017 13:29:52
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.780-789
  10. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996) 0.00 
    0.0027040783 = product of:
  0.02974486 = sum of:
    0.0035673876 = weight(_text_:in in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035673876 = score(doc=7659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
    0.026177472 = sum of:
      0.009459447 = weight(_text_:science in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009459447 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.016718024 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016718024 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
  11. Impe, S. van; Rousseau, R.: Web-to-print citations and the humanities (2006) 0.00 
    0.00259561 = product of:
  0.019034473 = sum of:
    0.006696969 = weight(_text_:und in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006696969 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04558063 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
    0.006696969 = weight(_text_:und in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006696969 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04558063 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
    0.005640535 = weight(_text_:in in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005640535 = score(doc=82,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 82, 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=82)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    References to printed documents made on the web are called web-to-print references. These printed documents then in turn receive web-to-print citations. Webto-print citations and web-to-print references are the topic of this article, in which we study the online impact of printed sources. Web-to-print citations are discussed from a structural point of view and a small-scale experiment related to web-to-print citations for local history journals is performed. The main research question in setting up this experiment concerns the possibility of using web-to-print citations as a substitute for classical citation indexes by gauging the importance, visibility and impact of journals in the humanities. Results show the importance of web bibliographies in the field, but, at least for what concerns the journals and the period studied here, the amount of received web-to-print citations is too small to draw general conclusions.
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.422-426
  12. Frandsen, T.F.; Rousseau, R.: Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods (2005) 0.00 
    0.0022816365 = product of:
  0.016732 = sum of:
    0.008434889 = product of:
      0.016869778 = sum of:
        0.016869778 = weight(_text_:29 in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016869778 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0035673876 = weight(_text_:in in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035673876 = score(doc=3264,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
    0.0047297236 = product of:
      0.009459447 = sum of:
        0.009459447 = weight(_text_:science in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009459447 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3264, 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=3264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    In this paper we address the various formulations of impact of articles, usually groups of articles as gauged by citations that these articles receive over a certain period of time. The journal impact factor, as published by ISI (Philadelphia, PA), is the best-known example of a formulation of impact of journals (considered as a set of articles) but many others have been defined in the literature. Impact factors have varying publication and citation periods and the chosen length of these periods enables, e.g., a distinction between synchronous and diachronous impact factors. It is shown how an impact factor for the general case can be defined. Two alternatives for a general impact factor are proposed, depending an whether different publication years are seen as a whole, and hence treating each one of them differently, or by operating with citation periods of identical length but allowing each publication period different starting points.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 10:29:08
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.1, S.58-62
  13. Yang, B.; Rousseau, R.; Wang, X.; Huang, S.: How important is scientific software in bioinformatics research? : a comparative study between international and Chinese research communities (2018) 0.00 
    0.0022543848 = product of:
  0.016532155 = sum of:
    0.0070290747 = product of:
      0.014058149 = sum of:
        0.014058149 = weight(_text_:29 in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014058149 = score(doc=4461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.072342895 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4461, 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=4461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.005561643 = weight(_text_:in in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005561643 = score(doc=4461,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 4461, 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=4461)
    0.0039414368 = product of:
      0.0078828735 = sum of:
        0.0078828735 = weight(_text_:science in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0078828735 = score(doc=4461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4461, 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=4461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13636364 = coord(3/22)
    Abstract
    Software programs are among the most important tools in data-driven research. The popularity of well-known packages and corresponding large numbers of citations received bear testimony of the contribution of scientific software to academic research. Yet software is not generally recognized as an academic outcome. In this study, a usage-based model is proposed with varied indicators including citations, mentions, and downloads to measure the importance of scientific software. We performed an investigation on a sample of international bioinformatics research articles, and on a sample from the Chinese community. Our analysis shows that scientists in the field of bioinformatics rely heavily on scientific software: the major differences between the international community and the Chinese example being how scientific packages are mentioned in publications and the time gap between the introduction of a package and its use. Biologists publishing in international journals tend to apply the latest tools earlier; Chinese scientists publishing in Chinese tend to follow later. Further, journals with higher impact factors tend to publish articles applying the latest tools earlier.
    Date
    29. 9.2018 12:36:19
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.9, S.1122-1133
  14. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.00 
    0.0020887784 = product of:
  0.022976562 = sum of:
    0.0029127598 = weight(_text_:in in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029127598 = score(doc=5171,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.1041228 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.020063803 = sum of:
      0.008918453 = weight(_text_:science in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008918453 = score(doc=5171,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.16463245 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.01114535 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01114535 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.072016776 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02056547 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
  15. Rousseau, R.; Ding, J.: Does international collaboration yield a higher citation potential for US scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary Journals? (2016) 0.00 
    0.0014671001 = product of:
  0.016138101 = sum of:
    0.0065806243 = weight(_text_:in in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065806243 = score(doc=2860,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 2860, 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=2860)
    0.009557477 = product of:
      0.019114954 = sum of:
        0.019114954 = weight(_text_:science in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019114954 = score(doc=2860,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.35285735 = fieldWeight in 2860, 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=2860)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Generally, multicountry papers receive more citations than single-country ones. In this contribution, we examine if this rule also applies to American scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals. Concretely, we compare the citations received by American scientists in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It is shown that, statistically, American scientists publishing in Nature and Science do not benefit from international collaboration. This statement also holds for communicated submissions, but not for direct and for contributed submissions, to PNAS.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.1009-1013
  16. Rousseau, R.: Use of an existing thesaurus in a knowledge based indexing and retrieval system (1991) 0.00 
    0.0013185904 = product of:
  0.014504494 = sum of:
    0.0050450475 = weight(_text_:in in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050450475 = score(doc=3007,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
    0.009459447 = product of:
      0.018918894 = sum of:
        0.018918894 = weight(_text_:science in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018918894 = score(doc=3007,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3007, 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=3007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Source
    Annals of library science and documentation. 38(1991) no.4, S.127-130
  17. Jin, B.; Li, L.; Rousseau, R.: Long-term influences of interventions in the normal development of science : China and the cultural revolution (2004) 0.00 
    0.0012575145 = product of:
  0.0138326585 = sum of:
    0.005640535 = weight(_text_:in in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005640535 = score(doc=2232,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2232, 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=2232)
    0.008192123 = product of:
      0.016384246 = sum of:
        0.016384246 = weight(_text_:science in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016384246 = score(doc=2232,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 2232, 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=2232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Intellectual and technological talents and skills are the driving force for scientific and industrial development, especially in our times characterized by a knowledgebased economy. Major events in society and related political decisions, however, can have a long-term effect an a country's scientific weIl-being. Although the Cultural Revolution took place from 1966 to 1976, its aftermath can still be felt. This is shown by this study of the production and productivity of Chinese scientists as a function of their age. Based an the 1995-2000 data from the Chinese Science Citation database (CSCD), this article investigates the year-by-year age distribution of scientific and technological personnel publishing in China. It is shown that the "Talent Fault" originating during the Cultural Revolution still exists, and that a new gap resulting from recent brain drain might be developing. The purpose of this work is to provide necessary information about the current situation and especially the existing problems of the S&T workforce in China.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.544-550
  18. Yan, S.; Rousseau, R.; Huang, S.: Contributions of chinese authors in PLOS ONE (2016) 0.00 
    0.0012445032 = product of:
  0.013689535 = sum of:
    0.0058858884 = weight(_text_:in in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058858884 = score(doc=2765,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 2765, 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=2765)
    0.0078036464 = product of:
      0.015607293 = sum of:
        0.015607293 = weight(_text_:science in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015607293 = score(doc=2765,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 2765, 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=2765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Beginning with a short review of Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals, we focus on PLOS ONE and more specifically the contributions of Chinese authors to this journal. It is shown that their contribution is growing exponentially. In 2013 almost one fifth of all publications in this journal had at least one Chinese author. The average number of citations per publication is approximately the same for articles with a Chinese author and for articles without any Chinese coauthor. Using the odds-ratio, we could not find arguments that Chinese authors in PLOS ONE excessively cite other Chinese contributions.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.543-549
  19. Zhang, L.; Rousseau, R.; Glänzel, W.: Document-type country profiles (2011) 0.00 
    0.0012431791 = product of:
  0.01367497 = sum of:
    0.004756517 = weight(_text_:in in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004756517 = score(doc=4487,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 4487, 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=4487)
    0.008918453 = product of:
      0.017836906 = sum of:
        0.017836906 = weight(_text_:science in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017836906 = score(doc=4487,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.3292649 = fieldWeight in 4487, 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=4487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    A bibliometric method for analyzing and visualizing national research profiles is adapted to describe national preferences for publishing particular document types. Similarities in national profiles and national peculiarities are discussed based on the publication output of the 26 most active countries indexed in the Web of Science annual volume 2007.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1403-1411
  20. Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Interestingness and the essence of citation : Thomas Reid and bibliographic description (2013) 0.00 
    0.001141933 = product of:
  0.012561263 = sum of:
    0.0043691397 = weight(_text_:in in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043691397 = score(doc=1764,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02056547 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 1764, 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=1764)
    0.008192123 = product of:
      0.016384246 = sum of:
        0.016384246 = weight(_text_:science in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016384246 = score(doc=1764,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02056547 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 1764, 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=1764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to provide a new insight into the reasons why authors cite. Design/methodology/approach The authors argue that, based on philosophical ideas about the essence of things, pure rational thinking about the role of citations leads to the answer. Findings - Citations originate from the interestingness of the investigated phenomenon. The essence of citation lies in the interaction between different ideas or perspectives on a phenomenon addressed in the citing as well as in the cited articles. Research limitations/implications - The findings only apply to ethical (not whimsical or self-serving) citations. As such citations reflect interactions of scientific ideas, they can reveal the evolution of science, revive the cognitive process of an investigated scientific phenomenon and reveal political and economic factors influencing the development of science. Originality/value - This article is the first to propose interestingness and the interaction of ideas as the basic reason for citing. This view on citations allows reverse engineering from citations to ideas and hence becomes useful for science policy.

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 52
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications