Search (450 results, page 1 of 23)

0.08086367 = product of:
  0.242591 = sum of:
    0.19220147 = weight(_text_:960 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19220147 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3350932 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.652365 = idf(docFreq=20, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.57357615 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.652365 = idf(docFreq=20, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
    0.05038953 = sum of:
      0.01890646 = weight(_text_:4 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01890646 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.17989448 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.03148307 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03148307 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

19. 3.2016 12:22:00

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.960-966

0.033409685 = product of:
  0.10022905 = sum of:
    0.07502043 = weight(_text_:r in 5653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07502043 = score(doc=5653,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.5851765 = fieldWeight in 5653, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5653)
    0.025208613 = product of:
      0.050417226 = sum of:
        0.050417226 = weight(_text_:4 in 5653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050417226 = score(doc=5653,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.47971863 = fieldWeight in 5653, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5653)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 49(1993) no.4, S.409-412

0.03266881 = product of:
  0.09800643 = sum of:
    0.03978559 = weight(_text_:r in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03978559 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
    0.05822084 = sum of:
      0.026737772 = weight(_text_:4 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026737772 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.25440922 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.03148307 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03148307 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 7.2012 19:35:26

Footnote

Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).

0.028784502 = product of:
  0.0863535 = sum of:
    0.028132662 = weight(_text_:r in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028132662 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
    0.05822084 = sum of:
      0.026737772 = weight(_text_:4 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026737772 = score(doc=2758,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.25440922 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
      0.03148307 = weight(_text_:22 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03148307 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2758, 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=2758)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:03:12

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Costas, R., M. Bordons u. T.N. van Leeuwen u.a.: Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.740-753.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.565-576

0.028002668 = product of:
  0.084008 = sum of:
    0.06564288 = weight(_text_:r in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06564288 = score(doc=3689,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
    0.018365124 = product of:
      0.03673025 = sum of:
        0.03673025 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03673025 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Context analysis is a new method for appraising a body of publications. the process consists of creating a database of attributes assigned to each paper by the reviewer and then looking for interesting relationships in the data. Assigning the attributes requires an understanding of the subject matter of the papers. Presents findings about one particular research field, Management of R&D at the Section Level. The findings support the view that this body of academic publications does not meet the needs of practitioner R&D managers. Discusses practical aspects of how to apply the method in other fields

Date

22. 5.1999 19:18:46

0.023987085 = product of:
  0.071961254 = sum of:
    0.023443883 = weight(_text_:r in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023443883 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
    0.04851737 = sum of:
      0.022281477 = weight(_text_:4 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022281477 = score(doc=2759,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.21200769 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.026235892 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026235892 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:02:48

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system: influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.4, S.565-576.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.740-753

0.02181172 = product of:
  0.065435156 = sum of:
    0.023443883 = weight(_text_:r in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023443883 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.041991275 = sum of:
      0.015755383 = weight(_text_:4 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015755383 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.14991207 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
      0.026235892 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026235892 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:02

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.402-414

0.020211661 = product of:
  0.12126996 = sum of:
    0.12126996 = weight(_text_:john in 485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12126996 = score(doc=485,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24518675 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.330911 = idf(docFreq=213, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.49460244 = fieldWeight in 485, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.330911 = idf(docFreq=213, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=485)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Empirical studies of obliteration by incorporation (OBI) may be conducted at the level of the database record or the fulltext citation-in-context. To assess the difference between the two approaches, 1,040 articles with a variant of the phrase "evolutionarily stable strategies" (ESS) were identified by searching the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA) and discipline-level databases. The majority (72%) of all articles were published in life sciences journals. The ESS concept is associated with a small set of canonical publications by John Maynard Smith; OBI represents a decoupling of the use of the phrase and a citation to a John Maynard Smith publication. Across all articles at the record level, OBI is measured by the number of articles with the phrase in the database record but which lack a reference to a source article (implicit citations). At the citation-in-context level, articles that coupled a non-Maynard Smith citation with the ESS phrase (indirect citations) were counted along with those that cited relevant Maynard Smith publications (explicit citations) and OBI counted only based on those articles that lacked any citation coupled with the ESS text phrase. The degree of OBI observed depended on the level of analysis. Record-level OBI trended upward, peaking in 2002 (62%), with a secondary drop and rebound to 53% (2008). Citation-in-context OBI percentages were lower with no clear pattern. Several issues relating to the design of empirical OBI studies are discussed.

0.020008523 = product of:
  0.12005113 = sum of:
    0.12005113 = weight(_text_:john in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12005113 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24518675 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.330911 = idf(docFreq=213, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.4896314 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.330911 = idf(docFreq=213, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Die International Mathematical Union (IMU) hat in Kooperation mit dem "International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM)" und dem "Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS)" einen Bericht mit dem Titel Citation Statistics herausgegeben, für den das "Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research", bestehend aus Robert Adler, John Ewing (Chair) und Peter Taylor verantwortlich zeichnet. Wir drucken im Folgenden zunächst das "Executive Summary" dieses Berichts ab und geben anschließend einen Überblick über einige der wichtigsten Argumente und Ergebnisse des Berichts. Die darin wiedergegebenen Tabellen und Grafiken sind dem Bericht entnommen, wir danken den Autoren für die Genehmigung des Abdrucks des Executive Summary und dieser Tabellen und Grafiken. Soweit wir den Bericht in Übersetzung zitieren, handelt es sich nicht um eine autorisierte Übersetzung.

0.019499645 = product of:
  0.05849893 = sum of:
    0.037510216 = weight(_text_:r in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037510216 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
    0.020988714 = product of:
      0.041977428 = sum of:
        0.041977428 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041977428 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:05:18

0.01914843 = product of:
  0.057445288 = sum of:
    0.04641652 = weight(_text_:r in 6501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641652 = score(doc=6501,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.3620595 = fieldWeight in 6501, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6501)
    0.011028768 = product of:
      0.022057535 = sum of:
        0.022057535 = weight(_text_:4 in 6501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022057535 = score(doc=6501,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.2098769 = fieldWeight in 6501, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6501)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Citation is a worldwide phenomenon. It needs to be considered in the international context. This study examines 4 common modalities (physical accessibility, cognitive accessibility, perceived quality, and perceived importance) underlying the complex citation practice by translation analysis. In an analysis of the Chinese literature in library and information science, it was found that there is a very strong correlation between languages cited and languages translated (r=0.978). The overall national citation pattern of foreign publications is highly correlated with its translation pattern (r=0.897). There is approximately 57% overlap between the group of the 60 most heavily cited authors and the group of the 60 most frequently translated authors. Highly cited publications are more likely to be translated (54.5 vs. 13.8%)

0.018811602 = product of:
  0.056434803 = sum of:
    0.045940444 = weight(_text_:r in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045940444 = score(doc=5171,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.358346 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.010494357 = product of:
      0.020988714 = sum of:
        0.020988714 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020988714 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, 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=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35

0.017682485 = product of:
  0.10609491 = sum of:
    0.10609491 = weight(_text_:r in 1115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10609491 = score(doc=1115,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.8275646 = fieldWeight in 1115, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1115)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Type

r

0.017150164 = product of:
  0.102900974 = sum of:
    0.102900974 = weight(_text_:john in 2216) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102900974 = score(doc=2216,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24518675 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.330911 = idf(docFreq=213, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.41968408 = fieldWeight in 2216, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.330911 = idf(docFreq=213, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2216)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this article we examine 2 classic stochastic models of the accumulation of citations introduced by H.A. Simon and Derek John de Solla Price. These models each have 2 distinct aspects: growth, which is the introduction of new articles, and preferential attachment, which describes how established articles accumulate new citations. The attachment rules are the subtle portion of these models that supply the interesting explanatory power. Previous treatments included both aspects. Here we separate preferential attachment from the growth aspect of the model. This separation allows us to examine the results of the preferential attachment rules without confounding these with growth in the number of articles available to receive citations. We introduce the method using Markov chains. We show how to overcome the mathematical and computational complexity to obtain results. A comparison of Simon's and Price's rules are computed in 3 Journal Citation Reports subject categories using articles published in the 1960s and allowed to accumulate citations to 1980. This comparison cannot be made through analysis of power laws.

0.01679651 = product of:
  0.10077906 = sum of:
    0.10077906 = sum of:
      0.03781292 = weight(_text_:4 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03781292 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.105097495 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = queryNorm
          0.35978895 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.7136984 = idf(docFreq=7967, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.06296614 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06296614 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03872851 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867

0.014624733 = product of:
  0.043874197 = sum of:
    0.028132662 = weight(_text_:r in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028132662 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
    0.015741535 = product of:
      0.03148307 = sum of:
        0.03148307 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03148307 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.014624733 = product of:
  0.043874197 = sum of:
    0.028132662 = weight(_text_:r in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028132662 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.015741535 = product of:
      0.03148307 = sum of:
        0.03148307 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03148307 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:26:24

0.014624733 = product of:
  0.043874197 = sum of:
    0.028132662 = weight(_text_:r in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028132662 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
    0.015741535 = product of:
      0.03148307 = sum of:
        0.03148307 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03148307 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:11:29

0.014624733 = product of:
  0.043874197 = sum of:
    0.028132662 = weight(_text_:r in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028132662 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
    0.015741535 = product of:
      0.03148307 = sum of:
        0.03148307 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03148307 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

8. 7.2015 22:00:42

0.014624733 = product of:
  0.043874197 = sum of:
    0.028132662 = weight(_text_:r in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028132662 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12820137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03872851 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.015741535 = product of:
      0.03148307 = sum of:
        0.03148307 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03148307 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13562064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03872851 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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