Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0064942986 = product of:
  0.016235746 = sum of:
    0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008341924 = score(doc=966,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 966, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=966)
    0.007893822 = product of:
      0.015787644 = sum of:
        0.015787644 = weight(_text_:information in 966) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015787644 = score(doc=966,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 966, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=966)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article offers important background information about a new product, the Book Citation Index (BKCI), launched in 2011 by Thomson Reuters. Information is illustrated by some new facts concerning The BKCI's use in bibliometrics, coverage analysis, and a series of idiosyncrasies worthy of further discussion. The BKCI was launched primarily to assist researchers identify useful and relevant research that was previously invisible to them, owing to the lack of significant book content in citation indexes such as the Web of Science. So far, the content of 33,000 books has been added to the desktops of the global research community, the majority in the arts, humanities, and social sciences fields. Initial analyses of the data from The BKCI have indicated that The BKCI, in its current version, should not be used for bibliometric or evaluative purposes. The most significant limitations to this potential application are the high share of publications without address information, the inflation of publication counts, the lack of cumulative citation counts from different hierarchical levels, and inconsistency in citation counts between the cited reference search and the book citation index. However, The BKCI is a first step toward creating a reliable and necessary citation data source for monographs - a very challenging issue, because, unlike journals and conference proceedings, books have specific requirements, and several problems emerge not only in the context of subject classification, but also in their role as cited publications and in citing publications.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1388-1398

Type

a

0.0021795689 = product of:
  0.010897844 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.001155891 = product of:
  0.005779455 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=5021,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".

Type

a

8.173384E-4 = product of:
  0.004086692 = sum of:
    0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004086692 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a