-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.04
0.04478179 = product of:
0.08956358 = sum of:
0.08956358 = sum of:
0.02949473 = weight(_text_:5 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02949473 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.052250203 = queryNorm
0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.06006885 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06006885 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052250203 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20%, 50%, and 80% of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing.
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Bergeron, P.: In their own image? : a comparison of doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior (2013)
0.01
0.0073736827 = product of:
0.014747365 = sum of:
0.014747365 = product of:
0.02949473 = sum of:
0.02949473 = weight(_text_:5 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02949473 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.052250203 = queryNorm
0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.5, S.1045-1054
-
Shu, F.; Julien, C.-A.; Larivière, V.: Does the Web of Science accurately represent chinese scientific performance? (2019)
0.01
0.0073736827 = product of:
0.014747365 = sum of:
0.014747365 = product of:
0.02949473 = sum of:
0.02949473 = weight(_text_:5 in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02949473 = score(doc=5388,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.052250203 = queryNorm
0.19344449 = fieldWeight in 5388, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5388)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 5. 9.2019 19:14:34
-
Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Cronin, B.: ¬A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years (2012)
0.01
0.0061447355 = product of:
0.012289471 = sum of:
0.012289471 = product of:
0.024578942 = sum of:
0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024578942 = score(doc=244,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.052250203 = queryNorm
0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 244, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=244)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.5, S.997-1016
-
Larivière, V.; Lozano, G.A.; Gingras, Y.: Are elite journals declining? (2014)
0.01
0.0061447355 = product of:
0.012289471 = sum of:
0.012289471 = product of:
0.024578942 = sum of:
0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 1228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024578942 = score(doc=1228,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.052250203 = queryNorm
0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 1228, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1228)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Previous research indicates that during the past 20 years, the highest-quality work has been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this article, we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns during the past 40 years of seven long-standing traditionally elite journals and six journals that have been increasing in importance during the past 20 years. To be among the top 5% or 1% cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top-cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of "excellence": Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of the most-cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux.
-
Mongeon, P.; Larivière, V.: Costly collaborations : the impact of scientific fraud on co-authors' careers (2016)
0.01
0.0061447355 = product of:
0.012289471 = sum of:
0.012289471 = product of:
0.024578942 = sum of:
0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 2769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024578942 = score(doc=2769,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.052250203 = queryNorm
0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 2769, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2769)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Over the past few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors' research careers. Using data from the Web of Science, we measured the productivity, impact, and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of 5 years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues' misconduct and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, with the impact is less important for middle authors.
-
Chen, L.; Ding, J.; Larivière, V.: Measuring the citation context of national self-references : how a web journal club is used (2022)
0.01
0.0061447355 = product of:
0.012289471 = sum of:
0.012289471 = product of:
0.024578942 = sum of:
0.024578942 = weight(_text_:5 in 545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024578942 = score(doc=545,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15247129 = queryWeight, product of:
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.052250203 = queryNorm
0.16120374 = fieldWeight in 545, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.9180994 = idf(docFreq=6494, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=545)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.5, S.671-686
-
Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015)
0.01
0.0053093857 = product of:
0.010618771 = sum of:
0.010618771 = product of:
0.021237543 = sum of:
0.021237543 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021237543 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18297131 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052250203 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
