Search (1384 results, page 1 of 70)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Siddiqui, M.A.: ¬A bibliometric study of authorship characteristics in four international information science journals (1997) 0.13 
    0.13155484 = product of:
  0.17540646 = sum of:
    0.008916007 = weight(_text_:a in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008916007 = score(doc=853,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 853, 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=853)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
    0.07034528 = sum of:
      0.029226862 = weight(_text_:information in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029226862 = score(doc=853,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 853, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=853)
      0.041118424 = weight(_text_:22 in 853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041118424 = score(doc=853,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 853, 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=853)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Reports results of a bibliometric study of the authorship characteristics of articles published in 4 major information science periodicals: JASIS, Information technology and libraries, Journal of information science, and Program. The aim was to determine the details of their authors, such as: sex, occupation, affiliation, geographic distribution, and institutional affiliation. A total of 163 articles published in 1993 and written by 294 authors were analyzed. Results indicate that: men (206 or 70%) publish 3.0 times more articles than women (69 or 23,5%). Schools of library and information science contributed the most authors. The majority of authors came from the USA (148 or 50,3%), with the Midwest region claiming the largest share (110 or 25,0%). Academic libraries (110 or 37,4%) account for the major share of library publication. 12 schools of library and information science, in the USA, contributed 32 authors (50,0%) and assistant professors (25 or 39,1%) publish the most in these library schools. Male school of library and information science authors publish 1,6 times more than their female counterparts
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.3-23
    Type
    a
  2. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.12 
    0.11817393 = product of:
  0.15756524 = sum of:
    0.0099684 = weight(_text_:a in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0099684 = score(doc=4681,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.051451683 = sum of:
      0.010333257 = weight(_text_:information in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010333257 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.041118424 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041118424 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
    Type
    a
  3. Vogler, E.; Schindler, C.; Botte, A.; Rittberger, M.: Are altmetrics effective in transdisciplinary research fields? : altmetric coverage of outputs in educational research (2017) 0.11 
    0.10975644 = product of:
  0.14634192 = sum of:
    0.008406092 = weight(_text_:a in 3557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008406092 = score(doc=3557,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3557, 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=3557)
    0.12819354 = weight(_text_:70 in 3557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12819354 = score(doc=3557,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.4732989 = fieldWeight in 3557, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3557)
    0.009742287 = product of:
      0.019484574 = sum of:
        0.019484574 = weight(_text_:information in 3557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019484574 = score(doc=3557,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 3557, 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=3557)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Series
    Schriften zur Informationswissenschaft; Bd. 70
    Source
    Everything changes, everything stays the same? - Understanding information spaces : Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science (ISI 2017), Berlin/Germany, 13th - 15th March 2017. Eds.: M. Gäde, V. Trkulja u. V. Petras
    Type
    a
  4. Wooldridge, J.; King, M.B.: Altmetric scores : an early indicator of research impact (2019) 0.09 
    0.08931567 = product of:
  0.119087555 = sum of:
    0.012609138 = weight(_text_:a in 5008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012609138 = score(doc=5008,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 5008, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5008)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 5008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=5008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 5008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5008)
    0.010333257 = product of:
      0.020666514 = sum of:
        0.020666514 = weight(_text_:information in 5008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020666514 = score(doc=5008,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5008, 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=5008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    In this article we test whether metrics of online attention describing research can provide information on research quality and societal impact that is not found in citation data alone. Our approach is to set up a traditional model in which the true quality or impact of a university department is determined by a panel of experts, but a citation metric is regarded as a reasonable proxy. However, the model assumes that the information contained in the scores provided by an expert panel exceeds that contained in a citation metric (HEFCE, 2015). Finally, we extend this model by including altmetric data to see if it adds information about a department's performance that cannot be gleaned from citations alone. We find the presence of altmetric data for the cited underpinning research to be highly correlated with peer review scores for societal impact. Conversely, no such connection was seen with the assessment of research quality. Our findings therefore suggest altmetric data could be useful as an aid to assessing impact.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.3, S.271-282
    Type
    a
  5. Bar-Ilan, J.: ¬The Web as an information source on informetrics? : A content analysis (2000) 0.09 
    0.08746057 = product of:
  0.116614096 = sum of:
    0.008916007 = weight(_text_:a in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008916007 = score(doc=4587,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4587, 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=4587)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=4587,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
    0.011552933 = product of:
      0.023105865 = sum of:
        0.023105865 = weight(_text_:information in 4587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023105865 = score(doc=4587,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 4587, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    This article addresses the question of whether the Web can serve as an information source for research. Specifically, it analyzes by way of content analysis the Web pages retrieved by the major search engines on a particular date (June 7, 1998), as a result of the query 'informetrics OR informetric'. In 807 out of the 942 retrieved pages, the search terms were mentioned in the context of information science. Over 70% of the pages contained only indirect information on the topic, in the form of hypertext links and bibliographical references without annotation. The bibliographical references extracted from the Web pages were analyzed, and lists of most productive authors, most cited authors, works, and sources were compiled. The list of reference obtained from the Web was also compared to data retrieved from commercial databases. For most cases, the list of references extracted from the Web outperformed the commercial, bibliographic databases. The results of these comparisons indicate that valuable, freely available data is hidden in the Web waiting to be extracted from the millions of Web pages
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.5, S.432-443
    Type
    a
  6. Zheng, X.; Sun, A.: Collecting event-related tweets from twitter stream (2019) 0.09 
    0.08701039 = product of:
  0.116013855 = sum of:
    0.010919834 = weight(_text_:a in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010919834 = score(doc=4672,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4672, 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=4672)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=4672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
    0.008948863 = product of:
      0.017897725 = sum of:
        0.017897725 = weight(_text_:information in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017897725 = score(doc=4672,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Twitter provides a channel of collecting and publishing instant information on major events like natural disasters. However, information flow on Twitter is of great volume. For a specific event, messages collected from the Twitter Stream based on either location constraint or predefined keywords would contain a lot of noise. In this article, we propose a method to achieve both high-precision and high-recall in collecting event-related tweets. Our method involves an automatic keyword generation component, and an event-related tweet identification component. For keyword generation, we consider three properties of candidate keywords, namely relevance, coverage, and evolvement. The keyword updating mechanism enables our method to track the main topics of tweets along event development. To minimize annotation effort in identifying event-related tweets, we adopt active learning and incorporate multiple-instance learning which assigns labels to bags instead of instances (that is, individual tweets). Through experiments on two real-world events, we demonstrate the superiority of our method against state-of-the-art alternatives.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.176-186
    Type
    a
  7. Shu, F.; Julien, C.-A.; Larivière, V.: Does the Web of Science accurately represent chinese scientific performance? (2019) 0.08 
    0.08417372 = product of:
  0.11223162 = sum of:
    0.010919834 = weight(_text_:a in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010919834 = score(doc=5388,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5388, 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=5388)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=5388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 5388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5388)
    0.0051666284 = product of:
      0.010333257 = sum of:
        0.010333257 = weight(_text_:information in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010333257 = score(doc=5388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5388, 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=5388)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    With the significant development of China's economy and scientific activity, its scientific publication activity is experiencing a period of rapid growth. However, measuring China's research output remains a challenge because Chinese scholars may publish their research in either international or national journals, yet no bibliometric database covers both the Chinese and English scientific literature. The purpose of this study is to compare Web of Science (WoS) with a Chinese bibliometric database in terms of authors and their performance, demonstrate the extent of the overlap between the two groups of Chinese most productive authors in both international and Chinese bibliometric databases, and determine how different disciplines may affect this overlap. The results of this study indicate that Chinese bibliometric databases, or a combination of WoS and Chinese bibliometric databases, should be used to evaluate Chinese research performance except in the few disciplines in which Chinese research performance could be assessed using WoS only.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.10, S.1138-1152
    Type
    a
  8. Abt, H.A.; Garfield, E.: Is the relationship between numbers of references and paper lengths the same for all sciences? (2002) 0.08 
    0.08346014 = product of:
  0.11128019 = sum of:
    0.0099684 = weight(_text_:a in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0099684 = score(doc=5223,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5223, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5223)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=5223,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 5223, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5223)
    0.0051666284 = product of:
      0.010333257 = sum of:
        0.010333257 = weight(_text_:information in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010333257 = score(doc=5223,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5223, 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=5223)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    It has been shown in the physical sciences that a paper's length is related to its number of references in a linear manner. Abt and Garfield here look at the life and social sciences with the thought that if the relation holds the citation counts will provide a measure of relative importance across these disciplines. In the life sciences 200 research papers from 1999-2000 were scanned in each of 10 journals to produce counts of 1000 word normalized pages. In the social sciences an average of 70 research papers in nine journals were scanned for the two-year period. Papers of average length in the various sciences have the same average number of references within plus or minus 17%. A look at the 30 to 60 papers over the two years in 18 review journals indicates twice the references of research papers of the same length.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.13, S.1106-1112
    Type
    a
  9. Peterson, G.M.: ¬The effectiveness of correction & republication as quality control in scholarly communication : a bibliometric analysis (2019) 0.08 
    0.08346014 = product of:
  0.11128019 = sum of:
    0.0099684 = weight(_text_:a in 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0099684 = score(doc=4991,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4991, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4991)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=4991,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 4991, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4991)
    0.0051666284 = product of:
      0.010333257 = sum of:
        0.010333257 = weight(_text_:information in 4991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010333257 = score(doc=4991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4991, 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=4991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    The practice of correction and republication is a mechanism for identifying and updating non-maleficent yet message-distorting errors in the biomedical literature. Inappropriate use of anomalous literature is evinced by citation of invalidated scholarly works, and though it is known that republished versions of articles are cited more often than corrected versions, the strength of the effect of invalidation, correction, and republication has not been previously quantified. Robust analysis of 15,000+ citations to 548 articles indexed in PubMed indicates that the practice of correction and republication is a strong predictor of reduced post-republication citation relative to controls. This bibliometric analysis shows that corrected articles are cited on average 51% less than controls overall and that the practice of correction and republication results in a fast-acting and long-lasting reduction in citation of flawed works by downstream researchers.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.3, S.293-295
    Type
    a
  10. Haddow, G.; Hammarfelt, B.: Quality, impact, and quantification : indicators and metrics use by social scientists (2019) 0.08 
    0.082670845 = product of:
  0.11022779 = sum of:
    0.008916007 = weight(_text_:a in 4671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008916007 = score(doc=4671,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4671, 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=4671)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 4671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=4671,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 4671, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4671)
    0.0051666284 = product of:
      0.010333257 = sum of:
        0.010333257 = weight(_text_:information in 4671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010333257 = score(doc=4671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4671, 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=4671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    The use of indicators and metrics for research evaluation purposes is well-documented; however, less is known about their use by individual scholars. With a focus on the social sciences, this article contributes to the existing literature on indicators and metrics use in fields with diverse publication practices. Scholars in Australia and Sweden were asked about their use and reasons for using metrics. A total of 581 completed surveys were analyzed to generate descriptive statistics, with textual analysis performed on comments provided to open questions. While just under half of the participant group had used metrics, the Australians reported use in twice the proportion of their Swedish peers. Institutional policies and processes were frequently associated with use, and the scholars' comments suggest a high level of awareness of some metrics as well as strategic behavior in demonstrating research performance. There is also evidence of tensions between scholars' research evaluation environment and their disciplinary values and publication practices.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.1, S.16-26
    Type
    a
  11. Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018) 0.08 
    0.08183589 = product of:
  0.10911452 = sum of:
    0.00786318 = weight(_text_:a in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00786318 = score(doc=4633,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.06409677 = weight(_text_:70 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06409677 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.23664945 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
    0.03715457 = sum of:
      0.009742287 = weight(_text_:information in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009742287 = score(doc=4633,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 4633, 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=4633)
      0.027412282 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027412282 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Design/methodology/approach The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate's Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com's capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX. Findings Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools. Practical implications This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com's functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.6, S.691-707
    Type
    a
  12. Hu, X.; Rousseau, R.: Do citation chimeras exist? : The case of under-cited influential articles suffering delayed recognition (2019) 0.08 
    0.08177496 = product of:
  0.10903328 = sum of:
    0.0077214893 = weight(_text_:a in 5217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077214893 = score(doc=5217,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5217, 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=5217)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 5217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=5217,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 5217, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5217)
    0.0051666284 = product of:
      0.010333257 = sum of:
        0.010333257 = weight(_text_:information in 5217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010333257 = score(doc=5217,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5217, 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=5217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    In this study we investigate if articles suffering delayed recognition can at the same time be under-cited influential articles. Theoretically these two types of articles are independent, in the sense that suffering delayed recognition depends on the number and time distribution of received citations, while being an under-cited influential article depends only partially on the number of received (first generation) citations, and much more on second and third citation generations. Among 49 articles suffering delayed recognition we found 13 that are also under-cited influential. Based on a thorough investigation of these special cases we found that so-called authoritative citers play an important role in uniting the two different document types into a special citation chimera. Our investigation contributes to the classification of publications.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.5, S.499-508
    Type
    a
  13. Colebunders, R.; Kenyon, C.; Rousseau, R.: Increase in numbers and proportions of review articles in Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, and oncology (2014) 0.08 
    0.079327345 = product of:
  0.10576979 = sum of:
    0.0044580037 = weight(_text_:a in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044580037 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
    0.0051666284 = product of:
      0.010333257 = sum of:
        0.010333257 = weight(_text_:information in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010333257 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1189, 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=1189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    This article examines whether the absolute and relative numbers of reviews are increasing in the following three subfields of medical sciences: Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, and Oncology. It further examines if reviews are cited more frequently than are "normal" articles. All research questions are answered affirmatively: The absolute as well as the relative numbers of reviews in these three subfields are indeed increasing. In addition, reviews in these fields are cited more frequently than are normal articles: about 70% more often than are "normal" articles in Infectious Diseases and Oncology and about 50% more often in Tropical Medicine. The article discusses possible reasons for this increase and concludes that medical journals should strive to achieve an optimal balance between review papers and original articles.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.201-205
    Type
    a
  14. Chi, P.-S.: ¬The field-specific reference patterns of periodical and nonserial publications (2019) 0.08 
    0.079327345 = product of:
  0.10576979 = sum of:
    0.0044580037 = weight(_text_:a in 4985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044580037 = score(doc=4985,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4985, 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=4985)
    0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 4985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09614516 = score(doc=4985,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 4985, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4985)
    0.0051666284 = product of:
      0.010333257 = sum of:
        0.010333257 = weight(_text_:information in 4985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010333257 = score(doc=4985,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4985, 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=4985)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.3, S.283-292
    Type
    a
  15. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.07 
    0.07454625 = product of:
  0.1490925 = sum of:
    0.0118880095 = weight(_text_:a in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0118880095 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5509, 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=5509)
    0.13720448 = sum of:
      0.02755535 = weight(_text_:information in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02755535 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.10964913 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10964913 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
    Type
    a
  16. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.07 
    0.07454625 = product of:
  0.1490925 = sum of:
    0.0118880095 = weight(_text_:a in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0118880095 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 6091, 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=6091)
    0.13720448 = sum of:
      0.02755535 = weight(_text_:information in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02755535 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.10964913 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10964913 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 41(2007), S.xxx-xxx
    Type
    a
  17. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.07 
    0.07454625 = product of:
  0.1490925 = sum of:
    0.0118880095 = weight(_text_:a in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0118880095 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1080, 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=1080)
    0.13720448 = sum of:
      0.02755535 = weight(_text_:information in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02755535 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.10964913 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10964913 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05058132 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Source
    Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
    Type
    a
  18. He, J.; Ping, Q.; Lou, W.; Chen, C.: PaperPoles : facilitating adaptive visual exploration of scientific publications by citation links (2019) 0.07 
    0.07442972 = product of:
  0.09923963 = sum of:
    0.010507616 = weight(_text_:a in 5326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010507616 = score(doc=5326,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5326, 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=5326)
    0.08012097 = weight(_text_:70 in 5326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08012097 = score(doc=5326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.29581183 = fieldWeight in 5326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5326)
    0.008611047 = product of:
      0.017222093 = sum of:
        0.017222093 = weight(_text_:information in 5326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017222093 = score(doc=5326,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5326, 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=5326)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Finding relevant publications is a common task. Typically, a researcher browses through a list of publications and traces additional relevant publications. When relevant publications are identified, the list may be expanded by the citation links of the relevant publications. The information needs of researchers may change as they go through such iterative processes. The exploration process quickly becomes cumbersome as the list expands. Most existing academic search systems tend to be limited in terms of the extent to which searchers can adapt their search as they proceed. In this article, we introduce an adaptive visual exploration system named PaperPoles to support exploration of scientific publications in a context-aware environment. Searchers can express their information needs by intuitively formulating positive and negative queries. The search results are grouped and displayed in a cluster view, which shows aspects and relevance patterns of the results to support navigation and exploration. We conducted an experiment to compare PaperPoles with a list-based interface in performing two academic search tasks with different complexity. The results show that PaperPoles can improve the accuracy of searching for the simple and complex tasks. It can also reduce the completion time of searching and improve exploration effectiveness in the complex task. PaperPoles demonstrates a potentially effective workflow for adaptive visual search of complex information.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.8, S.843-857
    Type
    a
  19. Leydesdorff, L.; Wagner, C.S.; Porto-Gomez, I.; Comins, J.A.; Phillips, F.: Synergy in the knowledge base of U.S. innovation systems at national, state, and regional levels : the contributions of high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services (2019) 0.07 
    0.07022993 = product of:
  0.09363991 = sum of:
    0.007430006 = weight(_text_:a in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007430006 = score(doc=5390,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5390, 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=5390)
    0.08012097 = weight(_text_:70 in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08012097 = score(doc=5390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.29581183 = fieldWeight in 5390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5390)
    0.0060889297 = product of:
      0.012177859 = sum of:
        0.012177859 = weight(_text_:information in 5390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177859 = score(doc=5390,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5390, 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=5390)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Using information theory, we measure innovation systemness as synergy among size-classes, ZIP Codes, and technological classes (NACE-codes) for 8.5 million American companies. The synergy at the national level is decomposed at the level of states, Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSA), and Combined Statistical Areas (CSA). We zoom in to the state of California and in more detail to Silicon Valley. Our results do not support the assumption of a national system of innovations in the U.S.A. Innovation systems appear to operate at the level of the states; the CBSA are too small, so that systemness spills across their borders. Decomposition of the sample in terms of high-tech manufacturing (HTM), medium-high-tech manufacturing (MHTM), knowledge-intensive services (KIS), and high-tech services (HTKIS) does not change this pattern, but refines it. The East Coast-New Jersey, Boston, and New York-and California are the major players, with Texas a third one in the case of HTKIS. Chicago and industrial centers in the Midwest also contribute synergy. Within California, Los Angeles contributes synergy in the sectors of manufacturing, the San Francisco area in KIS. KIS in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area-a CSA composed of seven CBSA-spill over to other regions and even globally.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.10, S.1108-1123
    Type
    a
  20. Kim, J.: Author-based analysis of conference versus journal publication in computer science (2019) 0.07 
    0.07014477 = product of:
  0.09352636 = sum of:
    0.009099863 = weight(_text_:a in 4678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009099863 = score(doc=4678,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4678, 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=4678)
    0.08012097 = weight(_text_:70 in 4678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08012097 = score(doc=4678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05058132 = queryNorm
        0.29581183 = fieldWeight in 4678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4678)
    0.0043055234 = product of:
      0.008611047 = sum of:
        0.008611047 = weight(_text_:information in 4678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008611047 = score(doc=4678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4678, 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=4678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Conference publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet, unlike other science fields where journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and journal publications are, considering an article as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author-based approach to analyze the publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more articles, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in journals. Importantly, conference articles seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to journal publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators outside CS who have focused on journal publications to mine authorship data and evaluate scholarly performance.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.1, S.71-82
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 1350
  • el 21
  • m 20
  • s 12
  • r 2
  • b 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications