Search (115 results, page 1 of 6)

0.06310791 = product of:
  0.18932372 = sum of:
    0.04070709 = weight(_text_:b in 2079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04070709 = score(doc=2079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 2079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2079)
    0.14861663 = weight(_text_:168 in 2079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14861663 = score(doc=2079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28385672 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.769634 = idf(docFreq=137, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.52356213 = fieldWeight in 2079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.769634 = idf(docFreq=137, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2079)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Footnote

Mathilde B. Friedländer steht für eine Studentengruppe der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 66(2015) H.2/3, S.159-168

0.04439824 = product of:
  0.26638943 = sum of:
    0.26638943 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26638943 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3554905 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.025825843 = product of:
  0.07747753 = sum of:
    0.06043436 = weight(_text_:b in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06043436 = score(doc=2647,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.40680233 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.017043166 = product of:
      0.03408633 = sum of:
        0.03408633 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03408633 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1468348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

"Genius work," proposed by Avramescu, refers to scientific articles whose citations grow exponentially in an extended period, for example, over 50 years. Such articles were defined as "sleeping beauties" by van Raan, who quantitatively studied the phenomenon of delayed recognition. However, the criteria adopted by van Raan at times are not applicable and may confer recognition prematurely. To revise such deficiencies, this paper proposes two new criteria, which are applicable (but not limited) to exponential citation curves. We searched for genius work among articles of Nobel Prize laureates during the period of 1901-2012 on the Web of Science, finding 25 articles of genius work out of 21,438 papers including 10 (by van Raan's criteria) sleeping beauties and 15 nonsleeping-beauties. By our new criteria, two findings were obtained through empirical analysis: (a) the awakening periods for genius work depend on the increase rate b in the exponential function, and (b) lower b leads to a longer sleeping period.

Date

22. 1.2016 14:13:32

0.023082202 = product of:
  0.069246605 = sum of:
    0.046522386 = weight(_text_:b in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046522386 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
    0.022724222 = product of:
      0.045448445 = sum of:
        0.045448445 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045448445 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1468348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 1.2017 17:12:50

Editor

Cronin, B. u. C.R. Sugimoto

0.017311653 = product of:
  0.051934958 = sum of:
    0.03489179 = weight(_text_:b in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489179 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
    0.017043166 = product of:
      0.03408633 = sum of:
        0.03408633 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03408633 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1468348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 7.2012 19:35:26

Footnote

Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).

0.0144263785 = product of:
  0.043279134 = sum of:
    0.029076494 = weight(_text_:b in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029076494 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.014202639 = product of:
      0.028405279 = sum of:
        0.028405279 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028405279 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1468348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.0144263785 = product of:
  0.043279134 = sum of:
    0.029076494 = weight(_text_:b in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029076494 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
    0.014202639 = product of:
      0.028405279 = sum of:
        0.028405279 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028405279 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1468348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 1.2011 13:19:42

0.0116305975 = product of:
  0.06978358 = sum of:
    0.06978358 = weight(_text_:b in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06978358 = score(doc=3967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.46973482 = fieldWeight in 3967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3967)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.009692165 = product of:
  0.05815299 = sum of:
    0.05815299 = weight(_text_:b in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05815299 = score(doc=1696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.008393662 = product of:
  0.05036197 = sum of:
    0.05036197 = weight(_text_:b in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05036197 = score(doc=1285,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.33900195 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers-both published and unpublished-have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.

0.008224075 = product of:
  0.049344447 = sum of:
    0.049344447 = weight(_text_:b in 4547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049344447 = score(doc=4547,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.3321527 = fieldWeight in 4547, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4547)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article presents an investigation of the role of social relations in the writing of scientific articles through the study of in-text citations. Does the fact that the author of an article knows the author whose work he or she cites have an impact on the context of the citation? Because citations are commonly used as criteria for research evaluation, it is important to question their social background to better understand how it impacts textual features. We studied a collection of science articles (N?=?123) from 5 disciplines and interviewed their authors (N?=?84) to: (a) identify the social relations between citing and cited authors; and (b) measure the correlation between a set of features related to in-text citations (N?=?6,956) and the identified social relations. Our pioneering work, mixing sociological and linguistic results, shows that social relations between authors can partly explain the variations of citations in terms of frequency, position and textual context.

0.008016243 = product of:
  0.048097454 = sum of:
    0.048097454 = product of:
      0.09619491 = sum of:
        0.09619491 = weight(_text_:psychologie in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09619491 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24666919 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = queryNorm
            0.38997537 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In diesem Artikel wird ein Re-Ranking-Ansatz für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, der die Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur messbar verbessern kann. Das nichttextorientierte Rankingverfahren Bradfordizing wird eingeführt und anschließend im empirischen Teil des Artikels bzgl. der Effektivität für typische fachbezogene Recherche-Topics evaluiert. Dem Bradford Law of Scattering (BLS), auf dem Bradfordizing basiert, liegt zugrunde, dass sich die Literatur zu einem beliebigen Fachgebiet bzw. -thema in Zonen unterschiedlicher Dokumentenkonzentration verteilt. Dem Kernbereich mit hoher Konzentration der Literatur folgen Bereiche mit mittlerer und geringer Konzentration. Bradfordizing sortiert bzw. rankt eine Dokumentmenge damit nach den sogenannten Kernzeitschriften. Der Retrievaltest mit 164 intellektuell bewerteten Fragestellungen in Fachdatenbanken aus den Bereichen Sozial- und Politikwissenschaften, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin zeigt, dass die Dokumente der Kernzeitschriften signifikant häufiger relevant bewertet werden als Dokumente der zweiten Dokumentzone bzw. den Peripherie-Zeitschriften. Die Implementierung von Bradfordizing und weiteren Re-Rankingverfahren liefert unmittelbare Mehrwerte für den Nutzer.

0.008016243 = product of:
  0.048097454 = sum of:
    0.048097454 = product of:
      0.09619491 = sum of:
        0.09619491 = weight(_text_:psychologie in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09619491 = score(doc=4910,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24666919 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041930884 = queryNorm
            0.38997537 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.8827567 = idf(docFreq=334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In dieser Arbeit werden zwei Mehrwertdienste für Suchsysteme vorgestellt, die typische Probleme bei der Recherche nach wissenschaftlicher Literatur behandeln können. Die beiden Mehrwertdienste semantische Heterogenitätsbehandlung am Beispiel Crosskonkordanzen und Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing, die in unterschiedlichen Phasen der Suche zum Einsatz kommen, werden in diesem Buch ausführlich beschrieben und evaluiert. Für die Tests wurden Fragestellungen und Daten aus zwei Evaluationsprojekten (CLEF und KoMoHe) verwendet. Die intellektuell bewerteten Dokumente stammen aus insgesamt sieben Fachdatenbanken der Fächer Sozialwissenschaften, Politikwissenschaft, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Psychologie und Medizin. Die Ergebnisse dieser Arbeit sind in das GESIS-Projekt IRM eingeflossen.

0.007753731 = product of:
  0.046522386 = sum of:
    0.046522386 = weight(_text_:b in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046522386 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.006853395 = product of:
  0.04112037 = sum of:
    0.04112037 = weight(_text_:b in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04112037 = score(doc=4608,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This study comprises a suite of analyses of words in article titles in order to reveal the cognitive structure of Library and Information Science (LIS). The use of title words to elucidate the cognitive structure of LIS has been relatively neglected. The present study addresses this gap by performing (a) co-word analysis and hierarchical clustering, (b) multidimensional scaling, and (c) determination of trends in usage of terms. The study is based on 10,344 articles published between 1988 and 2007 in 16 LIS journals. Methodologically, novel aspects of this study are: (a) its large scale, (b) removal of non-specific title words based on the "word concentration" measure (c) identification of the most frequent terms that include both single words and phrases, and (d) presentation of the relative frequencies of terms using "heatmaps". Conceptually, our analysis reveals that LIS consists of three main branches: the traditionally recognized library-related and information-related branches, plus an equally distinct bibliometrics/scientometrics branch. The three branches focus on: libraries, information, and science, respectively. In addition, our study identifies substructures within each branch. We also tentatively identify "information seeking behavior" as a branch that is establishing itself separate from the three main branches. Furthermore, we find that cognitive concepts in LIS evolve continuously, with no stasis since 1992. The most rapid development occurred between 1998 and 2001, influenced by the increased focus on the Internet. The change in the cognitive landscape is found to be driven by the emergence of new information technologies, and the retirement of old ones.

0.006853395 = product of:
  0.04112037 = sum of:
    0.04112037 = weight(_text_:b in 1091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04112037 = score(doc=1091,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 1091, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1091)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The number of research studies on social tagging has increased rapidly in the past years, but few of them highlight the characteristics and research trends in social tagging. A set of 862 academic documents relating to social tagging and published from 2005 to 2011 was thus examined using bibliometric analysis as well as the social network analysis technique. The results show that social tagging, as a research area, develops rapidly and attracts an increasing number of new entrants. There are no key authors, publication sources, or research groups that dominate the research domain of social tagging. Research on social tagging appears to focus mainly on the following three aspects: (a) components and functions of social tagging (e.g., tags, tagging objects, and tagging network), (b) taggers' behaviors and interface design, and (c) tags' organization and usage in social tagging. The trend suggest that more researchers turn to the latter two integrated with human computer interface and information retrieval, although the first aspect is the fundamental one in social tagging. Also, more studies relating to social tagging pay attention to multimedia tagging objects and not only text tagging. Previous research on social tagging was limited to a few subject domains such as information science and computer science. As an interdisciplinary research area, social tagging is anticipated to attract more researchers from different disciplines. More practical applications, especially in high-tech companies, is an encouraging research trend in social tagging.

0.006853395 = product of:
  0.04112037 = sum of:
    0.04112037 = weight(_text_:b in 2160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04112037 = score(doc=2160,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 2160, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2160)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In recent years, a number of studies have introduced methods for identifying papers with delayed recognition (so called "sleeping beauties," SBs) or have presented single publications as cases of SBs. Most recently, Ke, Ferrara, Radicchi, and Flammini (2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112(24), 7426-7431) proposed the so called "beauty coefficient" (denoted as B) to quantify how much a given paper can be considered as a paper with delayed recognition. In this study, the new term smart girl (SG) is suggested to differentiate instant credit or "flashes in the pan" from SBs. Although SG and SB are qualitatively defined, the dynamic citation angle ß is introduced in this study as a simple way for identifying SGs and SBs quantitatively - complementing the beauty coefficient B. The citation angles for all articles from 1980 (n?=?166,870) in natural sciences are calculated for identifying SGs and SBs and their extent. We reveal that about 3% of the articles are typical SGs and about 0.1% typical SBs. The potential advantages of the citation angle approach are explained.

0.006853395 = product of:
  0.04112037 = sum of:
    0.04112037 = weight(_text_:b in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04112037 = score(doc=2261,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.2767939 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Many studies (in information science) have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we reexamine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (a) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (b) analyze the data across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with an advanced statistical technique-segmented regression analysis-which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (a) the number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (b) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three essential growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars, and 8 to 9% to 2010.

0.006784515 = product of:
  0.04070709 = sum of:
    0.04070709 = weight(_text_:b in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04070709 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.006784515 = product of:
  0.04070709 = sum of:
    0.04070709 = weight(_text_:b in 4505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04070709 = score(doc=4505,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041930884 = queryNorm
        0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 4505, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4505)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Der Artikel ist Teil einer größeren Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Open Access Publishing zur Erhöhung der Publikations- und damit Karrierechancen von Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen. Es werden drei inhaltlich und methodisch ähnliche sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften verglichen: das Open-Access-Journal "Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung" ("FQS") und die zwei Closed-Access-/Hybridjournale "Zeitschrift für qualitative Forschung" und "Sozialer Sinn". Erhoben wird (a) der jeweilige Frauenanteil unter Redaktions- und Beiratsmitgliedern dieser drei Zeitschriften (N=184 insgesamt), (b) aufwändig rekonstruiert und analysiert wird die Genderstruktur der Autorenschaften aller in den drei Zeitschriften zwischen 2000 und 2008 veröffentlichten Beiträge (Totalerhebung, N=1557 insgesamt).