-
Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010)
0.07
0.06938817 = product of:
0.13877635 = sum of:
0.13877635 = sum of:
0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09743616 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041340183 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.
- Date
- 28. 9.2010 12:54:22
-
Heneberg, P.: Supposedly uncited articles of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists can be prevalently attributed to the errors of omission and commission (2013)
0.06
0.05782348 = product of:
0.11564696 = sum of:
0.11564696 = sum of:
0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08119681 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034450155 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Several independent authors reported a high share of uncited publications, which include those produced by top scientists. This share was repeatedly reported to exceed 10% of the total papers produced, without any explanation of this phenomenon and the lack of difference in uncitedness between average and successful researchers. In this report, we analyze the uncitedness among two independent groups of highly visible scientists (mathematicians represented by Fields medalists, and researchers in physiology or medicine represented by Nobel Prize laureates in the respective field). Analysis of both groups led to the identical conclusion: over 90% of the uncited database records of highly visible scientists can be explained by the inclusion of editorial materials progress reports presented at international meetings (meeting abstracts), discussion items (letters to the editor, discussion), personalia (biographic items), and by errors of omission and commission of the Web of Science (WoS) database and of the citing documents. Only a marginal amount of original articles and reviews were found to be uncited (0.9 and 0.3%, respectively), which is in strong contrast with the previously reported data, which never addressed the document types among the uncited records.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:21:46
-
Proceedings of the Fifth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (1995)
0.05
0.04871808 = product of:
0.09743616 = sum of:
0.09743616 = product of:
0.19487232 = sum of:
0.19487232 = weight(_text_:90 in 7868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19487232 = score(doc=7868,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.7127794 = fieldWeight in 7868, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7868)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Library and information science research 18(1996) no.1, S.90-92 (E. Davenport)
-
Juchem, K.: ¬Der Bibliotheksdienst in szientometrischer Analyse (2002)
0.03
0.028418882 = product of:
0.056837764 = sum of:
0.056837764 = product of:
0.11367553 = sum of:
0.11367553 = weight(_text_:90 in 1213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11367553 = score(doc=1213,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.415788 = fieldWeight in 1213, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1213)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Der BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST Ist das Organ der Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Bibliotheksverbände (BDB) und wird von der Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin herausgegeben. Er ist eine Fachzeitschrift mit Mitteilungen und Berichten aus allen Bereichen der Bibliotheksarbeit. Der BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST erscheint monatlich (11mal im Jahr), die durchschnittliche Seitenzahl (im DIN A5-Format) beträgt 2.250 pro Jahrgang, wovon rund 200 bis 300 Seiten auf Anzeigen entfallen. Mit einer verkauften Auflage von 4.000 Exemplaren hat er eine große Reichweite in der deutschen Bibliothekswelt. 90% der Abonnenten leben in Deutschland, 10% im Ausland. Der Bezieherkreis setzt sich aus Bibliothekaren und verwandten Berufsgruppen (50%), aus Bibliotheken (40%) und Institutionen des Informationswesens (10%) zusammen. Der BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST erscheint als Printorgan, mit einer Verzögerung von drei Monaten werden die Artikel zusätzlich digital (http://bibliotheksdienst.zib.de) zur Verfügung gestellt. Wie werden die Beiträge des BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST rezipiert? Wo steht der BIBLIOTHEKSDIENST In der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation?
-
Craven, T.C.: Determining authorship of Web pages (2006)
0.03
0.028418882 = product of:
0.056837764 = sum of:
0.056837764 = product of:
0.11367553 = sum of:
0.11367553 = weight(_text_:90 in 1498) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11367553 = score(doc=1498,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.415788 = fieldWeight in 1498, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1498)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Assignability of authors to Web pages using either normal browsing procedures or browsing assisted by simple automatic extraction was investigated. Candidate strings for 1000 pages were extracted automatically from title elements, meta-tags, and address-like and copyright-like passages; 539 of the pages produced at least one candidate: 310 candidates from titles, 66 from meta-tags, 91 from address-like passages, and 259 from copyright-like passages. An assistant attempted to identify personal authors for 943 pages by examining the pages themselves and related pages; this added 90 pages with authors to the pages from which no candidate strings were extracted. Specific problems are noted and some refinements to the extraction methods are suggested.
-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.03
0.027560122 = product of:
0.055120245 = sum of:
0.055120245 = product of:
0.11024049 = sum of:
0.11024049 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11024049 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.03
0.027560122 = product of:
0.055120245 = sum of:
0.055120245 = product of:
0.11024049 = sum of:
0.11024049 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11024049 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.03
0.027560122 = product of:
0.055120245 = sum of:
0.055120245 = product of:
0.11024049 = sum of:
0.11024049 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11024049 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
-
Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998)
0.02
0.024359938 = product of:
0.048719876 = sum of:
0.048719876 = product of:
0.09743975 = sum of:
0.09743975 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09743975 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:22:35
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.024359938 = product of:
0.048719876 = sum of:
0.048719876 = product of:
0.09743975 = sum of:
0.09743975 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09743975 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Dees, W.: Aktuelle Themen der Szientometrie : Bericht über die 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics vom 14. bis 17. Juli 2009 (2009)
0.02
0.02435904 = product of:
0.04871808 = sum of:
0.04871808 = product of:
0.09743616 = sum of:
0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 3242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09743616 = score(doc=3242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 3242, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3242)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Vom 14. bis 17. Juli fand in Rio de Janeiro die 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics statt. Das von den Organisatoren formulierte Ziel der Tagung war es, ein internationals Forum für Wissenschaftler, Wissenschaftsmanager und im Informationsbereich Tätige zu bieten, um den gegenwärtigen Stand und die Fortschritte im Feld szientometrischer Theorien und Anwendungen zu diskutieren. Nachdem die letzten beiden Konferenzen in Europa stattgefunden hatten (Stockholm und Madrid), war mit der Wahl des Tagungsortes zudem der Anspruch verknüpft, einen Beitrag zur weiteren Verbreitung der Szientometrie in lateinamerikanischen Ländern zu leisten. Die Konferenz verzeichnete die in ihrer bisherigen Geschichte höchste Zahl von eingereichten Beiträgen (254), von denen 66 Prozent angenommen wurden. Das endgültige Programm umfasste damit zwei Keynotes, über 90 Vorträge in 21 Sessions sowie 64 Poster. Vor dem Beginn dieses Hauptprogramms der Konferenz fanden darüber hinaus ein Doctoral Forum und drei Workshops zu den Themen "Tracking and evaluating interdisciplinary research: metric and maps", "Visualizing and Analyzing Scientific Literature with CiteSpace" und "Using Maps of Science to Teach Science" statt.
-
Waltman, L.; Costas, R.: F1000 Recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation : a comparison with citations (2014)
0.02
0.02435904 = product of:
0.04871808 = sum of:
0.04871808 = product of:
0.09743616 = sum of:
0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09743616 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- F1000 is a postpublication peer review service for biological and medical research. F1000 recommends important publications in the biomedical literature, and from this perspective F1000 could be an interesting tool for research evaluation. By linking the complete database of F1000 recommendations to the Web of Science bibliographic database, we are able to make a comprehensive comparison between F1000 recommendations and citations. We find that about 2% of the publications in the biomedical literature receive at least one F1000 recommendation. Recommended publications on average receive 1.30 recommendations, and more than 90% of the recommendations are given within half a year after a publication has appeared. There turns out to be a clear correlation between F1000 recommendations and citations. However, the correlation is relatively weak, at least weaker than the correlation between journal impact and citations. More research is needed to identify the main reasons for differences between recommendations and citations in assessing the impact of publications.
-
Pislyakov, V.; Shukshina, E.: Measuring excellence in Russia : highly cited papers, leading institutions, patterns of national and international collaboration (2014)
0.02
0.02435904 = product of:
0.04871808 = sum of:
0.04871808 = product of:
0.09743616 = sum of:
0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 1533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09743616 = score(doc=1533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 1533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1533)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this study, we discover Russian "centers of excellence" and explore patterns of their collaboration with each other and with foreign partners. Highly cited papers serve as a proxy for "excellence" and coauthored papers as a measure of collaborative efforts. We find that currently research institutes (of the Russian Academy of Sciences as well as others) remain the key players despite recent government initiatives to stimulate university science. The contribution of the commercial sector to high-impact research is negligible. More than 90% of Russian highly cited papers involve international collaboration, and Russian institutions often do not play a dominant role. Partnership with U.S., German, U.K., and French scientists increases markedly the probability of a Russian paper becoming highly cited. Patterns of national ("intranational") collaboration in world-class research differ significantly across different types of organizations; the strongest ties are between three nuclear/particle physics centers. Finally, we draw a coauthorship map to visualize collaboration between Russian centers of excellence.
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.02
0.024115108 = product of:
0.048230216 = sum of:
0.048230216 = product of:
0.09646043 = sum of:
0.09646043 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09646043 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.02
0.024115108 = product of:
0.048230216 = sum of:
0.048230216 = product of:
0.09646043 = sum of:
0.09646043 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09646043 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990)
0.02
0.024115108 = product of:
0.048230216 = sum of:
0.048230216 = product of:
0.09646043 = sum of:
0.09646043 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09646043 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:55
-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.02
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = product of:
0.08268037 = sum of:
0.08268037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08268037 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.02
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = product of:
0.08268037 = sum of:
0.08268037 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08268037 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Heimeriks, G.: ¬The self-organization of the European information society : the case of "biotechnology" (2001)
0.02
0.020299202 = product of:
0.040598404 = sum of:
0.040598404 = product of:
0.08119681 = sum of:
0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 6524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08119681 = score(doc=6524,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 6524, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6524)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Vgl. auch die Stellungnahme von P. van den Besselaar: Empirical evidence of self-organization? in: JASIST 54(2003) no.1, S.87-90.
-
Al, U.; Sahiner, M.; Tonta, Y.: Arts and humanities literature : bibliometric characteristics of contributions by Turkish authors (2006)
0.02
0.020299202 = product of:
0.040598404 = sum of:
0.040598404 = product of:
0.08119681 = sum of:
0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 5108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08119681 = score(doc=5108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 5108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5108)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Scholarly communication in arts and humanities differs from that in the sciences. Arts and humanities scholars rely primarily on monographs as a medium of publication whereas scientists consider articles that appear in scholarly journals as the single most important publication outlet. The number of journal citation studies in arts and humanities is therefore limited. In this article, we investigate the bibliometric characteristics of 507 arts and humanities journal articles written by authors affiliated with Turkish institutions and indexed in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) between the years 1975-2003. Journal articles constituted more than 60% of all publications. One third of all contributions were published during the last 4 years (1999-2003) and appeared in 16 different journals. An overwhelming majority of contributions (91%) were written in English, and 83% of them had single authorship. Researchers based at Turkish universities produced 90% of all publications. Two thirds of references in publications were to monographs. The median age of all references was 12 years. Eighty percent of publications authored by Turkish arts and humanities scholars were not cited at all while the remaining 20% (or 99 publications) were cited 304 times (an average of three citations per publication). Self-citation ratio was 31%. Two thirds of the cited publications were cited for the first time within 2 years of their publications.
