Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008627858 = product of:
  0.021569645 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 1690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=1690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1690)
    0.013396261 = product of:
      0.026792523 = sum of:
        0.026792523 = weight(_text_:information in 1690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026792523 = score(doc=1690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special Issue "Combining bibliometrics and information retrieval"

Type

a

0.007058388 = product of:
  0.01764597 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=6112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6112)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 6112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=6112,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 6112, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6112)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Mehrwert von Information - Professionalisierung der Informationsarbeit: Proceedings des 4. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI'94), Graz, 2.-4. November 1994. Hrsg.: W. Rauch u.a

Type

a

0.0068851607 = product of:
  0.017212901 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=285,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A new visual representation of the response time, i.e., the time elapsed between the publication year and the date of the first citation of a paper, is provided. This presentation can be used to detect and describe different paradigmatic types of reception speed for scientific journals.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1420-1425

Type

a

0.0066203782 = product of:
  0.016550945 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=992,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
    0.009472587 = product of:
      0.018945174 = sum of:
        0.018945174 = weight(_text_:information in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018945174 = score(doc=992,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In an earlier study by the authors, full-text analysis and traditional bibliometric methods were combined to map research papers published in the journal Scientometrics. The main objective was to develop appropriate techniques of full-text analysis and to improve the efficiency of the individual methods in the mapping of science. The number of papers was, however, rather limited. In the present study, we extend the quantitative linguistic part of the previous studies to a set of five journals representing the field of Library and Information Science (LIS). Almost 1000 articles and notes published in the period 2002-2004 have been selected for this exercise. The optimum solution for clustering LIS is found for six clusters. The combination of different mapping techniques, applied to the full text of scientific publications, results in a characteristic tripod pattern. Besides two clusters in bibliometrics, one cluster in information retrieval and one containing general issues, webometrics and patent studies are identified as small but emerging clusters within LIS. The study is concluded with the analysis of cluster representations by the selected journals.

Source

Information processing and management. 42(2006) no.6, S.1614-1642

Type

a

0.005751905 = product of:
  0.014379762 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
    0.0089308405 = product of:
      0.017861681 = sum of:
        0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017861681 = score(doc=960,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 960, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In this article, the authors answer the question of whether the field of scientometrics/bibliometrics shares essential characteristics of "metrics" sciences. To achieve this objective, the citation network of seven selected metrics and their information environment is analyzed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1515-1518

Type

a

0.0056083994 = product of:
  0.014020998 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=4487,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=4487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Type

a

0.0049073496 = product of:
  0.012268374 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=810,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 810, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=810)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=810,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 810, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Footnote

Artikel in einem Themenheft "Current theory in library and information science"

Type

a

0.004303226 = product of:
  0.010758064 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=2902,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 2902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=2902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The objective of this article is to further the study of journal interdisciplinarity, or, more generally, knowledge integration at the level of individual articles. Interdisciplinarity is operationalized by the diversity of subject fields assigned to cited items in the article's reference list. Subject fields and subfields were obtained from the Leuven-Budapest (ECOOM) subject-classification scheme, while disciplinary diversity was measured taking variety, balance, and disparity into account. As diversity measure we use a Hill-type true diversity in the sense of Jost and Leinster-Cobbold. The analysis is conducted in 3 steps. In the first part, the properties of this measure are discussed, and, on the basis of these properties it is shown that the measure has the potential to serve as an indicator of interdisciplinarity. In the second part the applicability of this indicator is shown using selected journals from several research fields ranging from mathematics to social sciences. Finally, the often-heard argument, namely, that interdisciplinary research exhibits larger visibility and impact, is studied on the basis of these selected journals. Yet, as only 7 journals, representing a total of 15,757 articles, are studied, albeit chosen to cover a large range of interdisciplinarity, further research is still needed.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.5, S.1257-1265

Type

a

0.0028759525 = product of:
  0.007189881 = sum of:
    0.002724461 = weight(_text_:a in 3770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002724461 = score(doc=3770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 3770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3770)
    0.0044654203 = product of:
      0.0089308405 = sum of:
        0.0089308405 = weight(_text_:information in 3770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0089308405 = score(doc=3770,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 3770, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3770)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In den letzten drei Jahrzehnten hat sich die Bibliometrie (auch Szientometrie genannt) zu einem komplexen Forschungs- und Dienstleistungsgebiet entwickelt. Ergebnisse bibliometrischer Studien haben längst Eingang gefunden in Wissenschaftspolitik und Forschungsmanagement. Allerdings haben sich betreffend der Aufgabe und Funktion der Bibliometrie auch hartnäckig Vorurteile und Mißverständnisse gehalten. Zu diesen gehören Meinungen wie z. B., daß methodische Forschung auf diesem Gebiet unnötig sei und daß Bibliometriker ihre Aktivitäten besser auf den praxisorientierte Einsatz und auf die Erarbeitung leicht verständlicher Guidelines für den Umgang mit ihren Indikatoren konzentrieren sollten. Trotz derverbreiteten Auffassung, daß Bibliometrie lediglich ein Hilfsmittel im Dienste der Wissenschaftspolitik sei, haben Bibliometriker durch ihre Forschung gezeigt, daß sich ihre Disziplin zu einem vielseitigem interdisziplinären Fachgebiet mit eigenen Teilbereichen entwickelt hat: Die strukturelle Szientometrie beschäftigt sich mit der epistemologischen Struktur der Wissenschaft, die dynamische Szientometrie brachte z. B. Modelle des Wachstums der Wissenschaft, der Alterung von Information und der Zitationsprozesse hervor; die evaluative Szientometrie entwickelte schließlich Indikatoren zum Messen und zur Evaluation von Forschungsleistung. Obwohl sich im letztgenannten Bereich ein Anwendungsschwerpunkt herauskristallisiert hat, sollte hierbei noch ein letztes Mißverständins ausgeräumt werden: Bibliometrie kann zwar zur Entwicklung von Methoden für die Forschungsevaluation genutzt werden; es kann aber nicht Aufgabe der Bibliometrie sein, Forschungsergebnisse zu beurteilen. Darüber hinaus hat Bibliometrie auch nicht zum Ziel, qualitative Methoden durch quantitative Verfahren, also im besonderen peer reviews oder Gutachten von Experten durch indikatorbasierte Evaluationen zu ersetzen; qualitative Methoden und Bibliometrie sollten einander stets ergänzen. Im folgenden wollen wir zunächst kurz die Struktur der gegenwärtigen bibliometrischen Forschung abreißen und dann die Möglichkeiten und Beschränkungen bibliometrischer Methoden diskutieren.

Content

"Struktur der Bibliometrie: Bibliometrie hat drei große Zielgruppen, die direkt oder indirekt das Profil der gegenwärtigen bibliometrischen Forschung mitbestimmen. 1. Bibliometrie für Bibliometriker (Methodik) Das ist die Domäne der bibliometrischen "Grundlagenforschung". Die methodische Forschung erfolgt zumeist in diesem Bereich. 2. Bibliometrie für Wissenschaftsgebiete (Wissenschaftsinformation) Dieser Bereich wird durch eine große aber sehr heterogene Interessengruppe repräsentiert. Infolge der primären Orientierung der Fachwissenschaftler sind deren Interessen stark auf ihr eigenes Gebiet ausgerichtet. Dieser Bereich läßt sich vielleicht am ehesten als Erweiterung der Wissenschaftsinformation mit metrischen Mitteln beschreiben. Hier finden wir auch das Grenzgebiet zu quantitativen Aspekten des Information Retrievals. 3. Bibliometrie für Wissenschaftspolitik (Wissenschaftspolitik) Dieser Bereich ist gegenwärtig der wichtigste in der Bibliometrie. Hier stehen nationale, regionale und institutionelle Strukturen in der Wissenschaft und die vergleichende Untersuchung und die Evaluation der Forschungsleistung auf diesen Aggregationsebenen im Vordergrund."

Type

a

0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 2904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=2904,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2904, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2904)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

9.5356145E-4 = product of:
  0.004767807 = sum of:
    0.004767807 = weight(_text_:a in 6110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004767807 = score(doc=6110,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 6110, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6110)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a