Search (57 results, page 2 of 3)

0.006474727 = product of:
  0.016186817 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=1965,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1965, 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=1965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Fundamental mathematical properties of rhythm sequences are studied. In particular, a set of three axioms for valid rhythm indicators is proposed, and it is shown that the R-indicator satisfies only two out of three but that the R-indicator satisfies all three. This fills a critical, logical gap in the study of these indicator sequences. Matrices leading to a constant R-sequence are called baseline matrices. They are characterized as matrices with constant w-year diachronous impact factors. The relation with classical impact factors is clarified. Using regression analysis matrices with a rhythm sequence that is on average equal to 1 (smaller than 1, larger than 1) are characterized.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1469-1478

Type

a

0.006474727 = product of:
  0.016186817 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=2717,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2717, 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=2717)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Type

a

0.006219466 = product of:
  0.015548665 = sum of:
    0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010812371 = score(doc=3264,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.1, S.58-62

Type

a

0.006219466 = product of:
  0.015548665 = sum of:
    0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010812371 = score(doc=5205,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=5205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Fractional counting of authors of multi-authored papers has been shown to lead to a breakdown of Lotka's Law despite its robust character under most circumstances. Kretschmer and Rousseau use the normal count method of full credit for each author on two five-year bibliographies from each of 13 Dutch physics institutes where high co-authorship is a common occurrence. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were preformed to see if the Lotka distribution fit the data. All bibliographies up to 40 authors fit acceptably; no bibliography with a paper with over 100 authors fits the distribution. The underlying traditional "success breeds success" mechanism assumes new items on a one by one basis, but Egghe's generalized model would still account for the process. It seems unlikely that Lotka's Law will hold in a high co-authorship environment.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.8, S.610-614

Type

a

0.0060245167 = product of:
  0.015061291 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=50,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 50, 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=50)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Several characteristics of classical Lorenz curves make them unsuitable for the study of a group of topperformers. TOP-curves, defined as a kind of mirror image of TIP-curves used in poverty studies, are shown to possess the properties necessary for adequate empirical ranking of various data arrays, based on the properties of the highest performers (i.e., the core). TOP-curves and essential TOP-curves, also introduced in this article, simultaneously represent the incidence, intensity, and inequality among the top. It is shown that TOPdominance partial order, introduced in this article, is stronger than Lorenz dominance order. In this way, this article contributes to the study of cores, a central issue in applied informetrics.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.777-785

Type

a

0.005948606 = product of:
  0.014871514 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=4994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Contrary to what one might expect, Nobel laureates and Fields medalists have a rather large fraction (10% or more) of uncited publications. This is the case for (in total) 75 examined researchers from the fields of mathematics (Fields medalists), physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine (Nobel laureates). We study several indicators for these researchers, including the h-index, total number of publications, average number of citations per publication, the number (and fraction) of uncited publications, and their interrelations. The most remarkable result is a positive correlation between the h-index and the number of uncited articles. We also present a Lotkaian model, which partially explains the empirically found regularities.

Footnote

Vgl.: Erratum. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1637-1644

Type

a

0.005898641 = product of:
  0.014746603 = sum of:
    0.0100103095 = weight(_text_:a in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0100103095 = score(doc=2638,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Hirsch-type indices are studied with special attention to the AR**2-index introduced by Jin. The article consists of two parts: a theoretical part and a practical illustration. In the theoretical part, we recall the definition of the AR**2-index and show that an alternative definition, the so-called AR**2,1, does not have the properties expected for this type of index. A practical example shows the existence of some of these mathematical properties and illustrates the difference between different h-type indices. Clearly the h-index itself is the most robust of all. It is shown that excluding so-called non-WoS source articles may have a significant influence on the R-and, especially, the g-index.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.14, S.2305-2311

Type

a

0.0058368337 = product of:
  0.014592084 = sum of:
    0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009010308 = score(doc=5587,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5587, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5587)
    0.0055817757 = product of:
      0.011163551 = sum of:
        0.011163551 = weight(_text_:information in 5587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011163551 = score(doc=5587,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5587, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to clarify earlier work on journal diffusion metrics. Classical journal indicators such as the Garfield impact factor do not measure the breadth of influence across the literature of a particular journal title. As a new approach to measuring research influence, the study complements these existing metrics with a series of formally described diffusion factors. Design/methodology/approach - Using a publication-citation matrix as an organising construct, the paper develops formal descriptions of two forms of diffusion metric: "relative diffusion factors" and "journal diffusion factors" in both their synchronous and diachronous forms. It also provides worked examples for selected library and information science and economics journals, plus a sample of health information papers to illustrate their construction and use. Findings - Diffusion factors capture different aspects of the citation reception process than existing bibliometric measures. The paper shows that diffusion factors can be applied at the whole journal level or for sets of articles and that they provide a richer evidence base for citation analyses than traditional measures alone. Research limitations/implications - The focus of this paper is on clarifying the concepts underlying diffusion factors and there is unlimited scope for further work to apply these metrics to much larger and more comprehensive data sets than has been attempted here. Practical implications - These new tools extend the range of tools available for bibliometric, and possibly webometric, analysis. Diffusion factors might find particular application in studies where the research questions focus on the dynamic aspects of innovation and knowledge transfer. Originality/value - This paper will be of interest to those with theoretical interests in informetric distributions as well as those interested in science policy and innovation studies.

Type

a

0.005751905 = product of:
  0.014379762 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 647, 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=647)
    0.0089308405 = product of:
      0.017861681 = sum of:
        0.017861681 = weight(_text_:information in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017861681 = score(doc=647,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 647, 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=647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Asserts that duality is an important topic in informetrics, especially in connection with the classical informetric laws. Yet this concept is less studied in information retrieval. It deals with the unification or symmetry between queries and documents, search formulation versus indexing, and relevant versus retrieved documents. Elaborates these ideas and highlights the connection with the hypergeometric distribution

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

0.0056083994 = product of:
  0.014020998 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=1197,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1197, 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=1197)
    0.006315058 = product of:
      0.012630116 = sum of:
        0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012630116 = score(doc=1197,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1197, 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=1197)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.281-289

Type

a

0.005513504 = product of:
  0.01378376 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=445,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 445, 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=445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Technology sectors differ in terms of technological complexity. When studying technology and innovation through patent analysis it is well known that similar amounts of technological knowledge can produce different numbers of patented innovation as output. A new multilayered approach to measure the technological value of patents based on ego patent citation networks (PCNs) is developed in this study. The results show that the structural indicators for the ego PCN developed in this contribution can characterize groups of patents and, hence, in an indirect way, the health of companies.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1834-1842

Type

a

0.005513504 = product of:
  0.01378376 = sum of:
    0.008258085 = weight(_text_:a in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008258085 = score(doc=2765,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=2765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2765, 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=2765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Type

a

0.005431735 = product of:
  0.013579337 = sum of:
    0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009632425 = score(doc=2266,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2266, 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=2266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.513-529

Type

a

0.005431735 = product of:
  0.013579337 = sum of:
    0.009632425 = weight(_text_:a in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009632425 = score(doc=816,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 816, 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=816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This essay provides an overview of journal evaluation indicators. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different indicators, together with their range of applicability. The definition of a "quality journal," different notions of impact factors, the meaning of ranking journals, and possible biases in citation databases are also discussed. Attention is given to using the journal impact in evaluation studies. The quality of a journal is a multifaceted notion. Journals can be evaluated for different purposes, and hence the results of such evaluation exercises can be quite different depending on the indicator(s) used. The impact factor, in one of its versions, is probably the most used indicator when it comes to gauging the visibility of a journal on the research front. Generalized impact factors, over periods longer than the traditional two years, are better indicators for the long-term value of a journal. As with all evaluation studies, care must be exercised when considering journal impact factors as a quality indicator. It seems best to use a whole battery of indicators (including several impact factors) and to change this group of indicators depending on the purpose of the evaluation study. Nowadays it goes without saying that special attention is paid to e-journals and specific indicators for this type of journal.

Footnote

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

Type

a

0.0051638708 = product of:
  0.012909677 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=5154,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The notions aging, obsolescence, impact, growth, utilization, and their relations are studied. It is shown how to correct an observed citation distribution for growth, once the growth distribution is known. The relation of this correction procedure with the calculation of impact measures is explained. More interestingly, we have shown how the influence of growth on aging can be studied over a complete period as a whole. Here, the difference between the so-called average and global aging distributions is the main factor. Our main result is that growth can influence aging but that it does not cause aging. A short overview of some classical articles on this topic is given. Results of these earlier works are placed in the framework set up in this article

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.11, S.1004-1017

Type

a

0.0051638708 = product of:
  0.012909677 = sum of:
    0.008173384 = weight(_text_:a in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008173384 = score(doc=82,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

Type

a

0.0049910345 = product of:
  0.012477586 = sum of:
    0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005779455 = score(doc=4384,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4384, 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=4384)
    0.0066981306 = product of:
      0.013396261 = sum of:
        0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013396261 = score(doc=4384,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.145-157

Type

a

0.004915534 = product of:
  0.012288835 = sum of:
    0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008341924 = score(doc=4461,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4461, 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=4461)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=4461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4461, 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=4461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.9, S.1122-1133

Type

a

0.0049073496 = product of:
  0.012268374 = sum of:
    0.0067426977 = weight(_text_:a in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067426977 = score(doc=4993,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 4993, 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=4993)
    0.005525676 = product of:
      0.011051352 = sum of:
        0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011051352 = score(doc=4993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4993, 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=4993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

We introduce the notions of congruous indicator of relative performance and congruous indicator of absolute performance. These notions are very similar to the notions of independence and consistency, yet slightly different. It is shown that percentile rank scores, as recently introduced by Leydesdorff, Bornmann, Mutz, and Opthof (2011), are strictly congruous indicators of relative performance, and similarly, that the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3), introduced by Leydesdorff and Bornmann (2011), is a strictly congruous indicator of absolute performance. Our analysis highlights the challenge of finding adequate axioms for ranking and for research evaluation.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.416-420

Type

a