-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.04
0.043177012 = product of:
0.086354025 = sum of:
0.086354025 = sum of:
0.026206357 = weight(_text_:20 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026206357 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = queryNorm
0.18222281 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.060147665 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060147665 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18321139 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = 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
-
Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015)
0.02
0.017184293 = product of:
0.034368586 = sum of:
0.034368586 = sum of:
0.013103179 = weight(_text_:20 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013103179 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = queryNorm
0.09111141 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.021265408 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021265408 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18321139 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = 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)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Lisée, C.; Larivière, V.; Archambault, E.: Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information : a bibliometric analysis (2008)
0.01
0.007721122 = product of:
0.015442244 = sum of:
0.015442244 = product of:
0.030884488 = sum of:
0.030884488 = weight(_text_:20 in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030884488 = score(doc=2356,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = queryNorm
0.21475165 = fieldWeight in 2356, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2356)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- While several authors have argued that conference proceedings are an important source of scientific knowledge, the extent of their importance has not been measured in a systematic manner. This article examines the scientific impact and aging of conference proceedings compared to those of scientific literature in general. It shows that the relative importance of proceedings is diminishing over time and currently represents only 1.7% of references made in the natural sciences and engineering, and 2.5% in the social sciences and humanities. Although the scientific impact of proceedings is losing ground to other types of scientific literature in nearly all fields, it has grown from 8% of the references in engineering papers in the early 1980s to its current 10%. Proceedings play a particularly important role in computer sciences, where they account for close to 20% of the references. This article also shows that not unexpectedly, proceedings age faster than cited scientific literature in general. The evidence thus shows that proceedings have a relatively limited scientific impact, on average representing only about 2% of total citations, that their relative importance is shrinking, and that they become obsolete faster than the scientific literature in general.
- Date
- 8.11.2008 17:28:20
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.: On the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications in different scientific fields (1980-2007) (2010)
0.01
0.007721122 = product of:
0.015442244 = sum of:
0.015442244 = product of:
0.030884488 = sum of:
0.030884488 = weight(_text_:20 in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030884488 = score(doc=3622,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = queryNorm
0.21475165 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 3.1997 20:31:13
20. 6.2010 14:45:45
-
Larivière, V.; Lozano, G.A.; Gingras, Y.: Are elite journals declining? (2014)
0.01
0.007721122 = product of:
0.015442244 = sum of:
0.015442244 = product of:
0.030884488 = sum of:
0.030884488 = weight(_text_:20 in 1228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030884488 = score(doc=1228,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = queryNorm
0.21475165 = fieldWeight in 1228, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, 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.
-
Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Bergeron, P.: In their own image? : a comparison of doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior (2013)
0.01
0.0065515894 = product of:
0.013103179 = sum of:
0.013103179 = product of:
0.026206357 = sum of:
0.026206357 = weight(_text_:20 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026206357 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = queryNorm
0.18222281 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 4.2013 16:06:50
-
Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015)
0.01
0.0065515894 = product of:
0.013103179 = sum of:
0.013103179 = product of:
0.026206357 = sum of:
0.026206357 = weight(_text_:20 in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026206357 = score(doc=2337,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = queryNorm
0.18222281 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study applied LDA (latent Dirichlet allocation) and regression analysis to conduct a lead-lag analysis to identify different topic evolution patterns between preprints and papers from arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS) in astrophysics over the last 20 years (1992-2011). Fifty topics in arXiv and WoS were generated using an LDA algorithm and then regression models were used to explain 4 types of topic growth patterns. Based on the slopes of the fitted equation curves, the paper redefines the topic trends and popularity. Results show that arXiv and WoS share similar topics in a given domain, but differ in evolution trends. Topics in WoS lose their popularity much earlier and their durations of popularity are shorter than those in arXiv. This work demonstrates that open access preprints have stronger growth tendency as compared to traditional printed publications.
-
Archambault, E.; Campbell, D; Gingras, Y.; Larivière, V.: Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus (2009)
0.01
0.0054596574 = product of:
0.010919315 = sum of:
0.010919315 = product of:
0.02183863 = sum of:
0.02183863 = weight(_text_:20 in 2933) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02183863 = score(doc=2933,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = queryNorm
0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 2933, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2933)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 7.2009 12:20:29
-
Atanassova, I.; Bertin, M.; Larivière, V.: On the composition of scientific abstracts (2016)
0.01
0.0054596574 = product of:
0.010919315 = sum of:
0.010919315 = product of:
0.02183863 = sum of:
0.02183863 = weight(_text_:20 in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02183863 = score(doc=3028,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1438149 = queryWeight, product of:
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.05231876 = queryNorm
0.15185234 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.748821 = idf(docFreq=7692, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 3.1997 20:31:13
