Search (43 results, page 1 of 3)

0.062372416 = product of:
  0.12474483 = sum of:
    0.12474483 = product of:
      0.24948967 = sum of:
        0.24948967 = weight(_text_:mining in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24948967 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.8727716 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.053462073 = product of:
  0.10692415 = sum of:
    0.10692415 = product of:
      0.2138483 = sum of:
        0.2138483 = weight(_text_:mining in 6850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2138483 = score(doc=6850,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.74808997 = fieldWeight in 6850, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6850)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Identifying the users and impact of research is important for research performers, managers, evaluators, and sponsors. It is important to know whether the audience reached is the audience desired. It is useful to understand the technical characteristics of the other research/development/applications impacted by the originating research, and to understand other characteristics (names, organizations, countries) of the users impacted by the research. Because of the many indirect pathways through which fundamental research can impact applications, identifying the user audience and the research impacts can be very complex and time consuming. The purpose of this article is to describe a novel approach for identifying the pathways through which research can impact other research, technology development, and applications, and to identify the technical and infrastructure characteristics of the user population. A novel literature-based approach was developed to identify the user community and its characteristics. The research performed is characterized by one or more articles accessed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) database, beccause the SCI's citation-based structure enables the capability to perform citation studies easily. The user community is characterized by the articles in the SCI that cite the original research articles, and that cite the succeeding generations of these articles as well. Text mining is performed on the citing articles to identify the technical areas impacted by the research, the relationships among these technical areas, and relationships among the technical areas and the infrastructure (authors, journals, organizations). A key component of text mining, concept clustering, was used to provide both a taxonomy of the citing articles' technical themes and further technical insights based on theme relationships arising from the grouping process. Bibliometrics is performed on the citing articles to profile the user characteristics. Citation Mining, this integration of citation bibliometrics and text mining, is applied to the 307 first generation citing articles of a fundamental physics article on the dynamics of vibrating sand-piles. Most of the 307 citing articles were basic research whose main themes were aligned with those of the cited article. However, about 20% of the citing articles were research or development in other disciplines, or development within the same discipline. The text mining alone identified the intradiscipline applications and extradiscipline impacts and applications; this was confirmed by detailed reading of the 307 abstracts. The combination of citation bibliometrics and text mining provides a synergy unavailable with each approach taken independently. Furthermore, text mining is a REQUIREMENT for a feasible comprehensive research impact determination. The integrated multigeneration citation analysis required for broad research impact determination of highly cited articles will produce thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands of citing article Abstracts.

0.037803393 = product of:
  0.075606786 = sum of:
    0.075606786 = product of:
      0.15121357 = sum of:
        0.15121357 = weight(_text_:mining in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15121357 = score(doc=3090,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.5289795 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent Web-searching and -mining tools are combining text and link analysis to improve ranking and crawling algorithms. The central assumption behind such approaches is that there is a correiation between the graph structure of the Web and the text and meaning of pages. Here I formalize and empirically evaluate two general conjectures drawing connections from link information to lexical and semantic Web content. The link-content conjecture states that a page is similar to the pages that link to it, and the link-cluster conjecture that pages about the same topic are clustered together. These conjectures are offen simply assumed to hold, and Web search tools are built an such assumptions. The present quantitative confirmation sheds light an the connection between the success of the latest Web-mining techniques and the small world topology of the Web, with encouraging implications for the design of better crawling algorithms.

0.03564138 = product of:
  0.07128276 = sum of:
    0.07128276 = product of:
      0.14256552 = sum of:
        0.14256552 = weight(_text_:mining in 78) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14256552 = score(doc=78,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.49872664 = fieldWeight in 78, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=78)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.031502828 = product of:
  0.063005656 = sum of:
    0.063005656 = product of:
      0.12601131 = sum of:
        0.12601131 = weight(_text_:mining in 3603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12601131 = score(doc=3603,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.44081625 = fieldWeight in 3603, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper addresses a bibliometric methodology to discover the structure of the scientific 'landscape' in order to gain detailed insight into the development of MD fields, their interaction, and the transfer of knowledge between them. This methodology is appropriate to visualize the position of MD activities in relation to interdisciplinary MD developments, and particularly in relation to socio-economic problems. Furthermore, it allows the identification of the major actors. It even provides the possibility of foresight. We describe a first approach to apply bibliometric mapping as an instrument to investigate characteristics of knowledge transfer. In this paper we discuss the creation of 'maps of science' with help of advanced bibliometric methods. This 'bibliometric cartography' can be seen as a specific type of data-mining, applied to large amounts of scientific publications. As an example we describe the mapping of the field neuroscience, one of the largest and fast growing fields in the life sciences. The number of publications covered by this database is about 80,000 per year, the period covered is 1995-1998. Current research is going an to update the mapping for the years 1999-2002. This paper addresses the main lines of the methodology and its application in the study of knowledge transfer.

Theme

Data Mining

0.027456136 = product of:
  0.054912273 = sum of:
    0.054912273 = product of:
      0.109824546 = sum of:
        0.109824546 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109824546 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = 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

0.026731037 = product of:
  0.053462073 = sum of:
    0.053462073 = product of:
      0.10692415 = sum of:
        0.10692415 = weight(_text_:mining in 184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10692415 = score(doc=184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.37404498 = fieldWeight in 184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study examined Web co-links to Canadian university Web sites. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) was used to analyze and visualize co-link data as was done in co-citation analysis. Co-link data were collected in ways that would reflect three different views, the global view, the French Canada view, and the English Canada view. Mapping results of the three data sets accurately reflected the ways Canadians see the universities and clearly showed the linguistic and cultural differences within Canadian society. This shows that Web co-linking is not a random phenomenon and that co-link data contain useful information for Web data mining. It is proposed that the method developed in the study can be applied to other contexts such as analyzing relationships of different organizations or countries. This kind of research is promising because of the dynamics and the diversity of the Web.

0.026731037 = product of:
  0.053462073 = sum of:
    0.053462073 = product of:
      0.10692415 = sum of:
        0.10692415 = weight(_text_:mining in 2934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10692415 = score(doc=2934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.37404498 = fieldWeight in 2934, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

According to the bibliographical data included in the Web of Science, SCOPUS, Chemical Abstracts, and other specialized information services covering the period 1900-1950, the first publications in mainstream journals by Mexican researchers appeared only in the first decades of the 20th century. Contrary to expectations, we find that the academic community was not the protagonist in the early stages of Mexican scientific practices, but that there was a strong contribution coming from researchers associated with the public-health sector and the chemical and mining industries. We were able to identify in this half century four different modes of scientific production: amateur, institutional, academic, and industrial, which in turn correspond to distinct stages in the evolution of the Mexican scientific production. We characterize these modes of production with a variety of indicators: publication and citation patterns, author output, journal and subject categories, institutional collaborations, and geographical distribution.

0.024268024 = product of:
  0.048536047 = sum of:
    0.048536047 = product of:
      0.097072095 = sum of:
        0.097072095 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097072095 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = 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

0.022275863 = product of:
  0.044551726 = sum of:
    0.044551726 = product of:
      0.08910345 = sum of:
        0.08910345 = weight(_text_:mining in 2030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08910345 = score(doc=2030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.31170416 = fieldWeight in 2030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Vom 5. bis 7. November 2003 findet auf Initiative und in der Verantwortung der Zentralbibliothek des Forschungszentrums Jülich die Konferenz "Bibliometric Analysis in Science and Research" statt: Bibliometrische Indikatoren, Bibliomefrisches Mapping, Webmetrie und Forschungspolitik stehen auf dem Programm. Nach einer Phase der Beruhigung auf dem Bibliometriesektor scheint dieses Forschungsfeld nun von der Bibliothekswissenschaft wieder eine Belebung zu erfahren. Vor allem in den 80erJahren wurden Gesetze von Bradford, Lotka und Zipf heiß diskutiert. Halbwertszeiten, Forschungsfronten und Kernzeitschriften sind Dank der Datenbanken des ISI problemlos aufzuspüren und werden gerne zur Selbstbespiegelung der Wissenschaft benutzt (Diodalo 1994). Die Zeitschrifen Scientometrics und die JASIST belegen, dass die mathematischen Modellierungen auf diesem Gebiet noch immer nicht an ihre Grenzen gestoßen sind. Und Vereinigungen wie die Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung oder die ISSI und deren Diskussionsliste oder Sigmetrics zeigen, dass nach wie vor eine starke Community auf diesem Gebiet aktiv ist. Andererseits hat der Begriff Bibliometrie ein wenig von seinem schillernden Glanz verloren und wird gerne durch Mapping, Cybermetrics (gleichnamig das "International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics"), Information Mining und anders in modernere Kontexte gesetzt (Park/Thelwall 2003). War es das relativierende Wissenschaftsverständnis, der Wegfall der konkurrierenden politischen Systeme oder die stürmische Medienentwicklung in der Wissenschaft, welche die Bibliometrie aus der Bibliotheks- und Informationsdiskussion vorübergehend verschwinden ließ?

0.022275863 = product of:
  0.044551726 = sum of:
    0.044551726 = product of:
      0.08910345 = sum of:
        0.08910345 = weight(_text_:mining in 2846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08910345 = score(doc=2846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.31170416 = fieldWeight in 2846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the libcitation count. This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world (e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers). From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a match-up between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000 to 2006. We present each book's raw libcitation count, its rank within its Library of Congress (LC) class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC's WorldCat.

0.0205921 = product of:
  0.0411842 = sum of:
    0.0411842 = product of:
      0.0823684 = sum of:
        0.0823684 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0823684 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = 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

0.01782069 = product of:
  0.03564138 = sum of:
    0.03564138 = product of:
      0.07128276 = sum of:
        0.07128276 = weight(_text_:mining in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07128276 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.24936332 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

The title of Chapter 5, On the Shoulders of Giants, implies that knowledge of the structure of scientific frontiers in the immediate past holds the key to a fruitful exploration of people's intellectual assets. Chapter 6, Tracing Competing Paradigms explains how information visualization can draw upon the philosophical framework of paradigm shifts and thereby enable scientists to track the development of Competing paradigms. The final chapter, Tracking Latent Domain Knowledge, turns citation analysis upside down by looking at techniques that may reveal latent domain knowledge. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization is an excellent book and is highly recommended. The book convincingly outlines general theories conceming cartography, visual communication, and science mapping-especially how metaphors can make a "big picture"simple and useful. The author likewise Shows how the GSA framework is based not only an technical possibilities but indeed also an the visualization principles presented in the beginning chapters. Also, the author does a fine job of explaining why the mapping of scientific frontiers needs a combined effort from a diverse range of underlying disciplines, such as philosophy of science, sociology of science, scientometrics, domain analyses, information visualization, knowledge discovery, and data mining.

0.01782069 = product of:
  0.03564138 = sum of:
    0.03564138 = product of:
      0.07128276 = sum of:
        0.07128276 = weight(_text_:mining in 4266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07128276 = score(doc=4266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.28585905 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.24936332 = fieldWeight in 4266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.642448 = idf(docFreq=425, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Different research fields have different definitions for semantic patterns. For knowledge discovery and representation, semantic patterns represent the distribution of occurrences of words in documents and/or citations. In the broadest sense, the term semantic patterns may also refer to the distribution of occurrences of subjects or topics as reflected in documents. The semantic pattern in a set of documents or a group of topics therefore implies quantitative indicators that describe the subject characteristics of the documents being examined. These characteristics are often described by frequencies of keyword occurrences, number of co-occurred keywords, occurrences of coword, and number of cocitations. There are many ways to analyze and derive semantic patterns in documents and citations. A typical example is text mining in full-text documents, a research topic that studies how to extract useful associations and patterns through clustering, categorizing, and summarizing words in texts. One unique way in library and information science is to discover semantic patterns through bibliographically coupled citations. The history of bibliographical coupling goes back in the early 1960s when Kassler investigated associations among technical reports and technical information flow patterns. A number of definitions may facilitate our understanding of bibliographic coupling: (1) bibliographic coupling determines meaningful relations between papers by a study of each paper's bibliography; (2) a unit of coupling is the functional bond between papers when they share a single reference item; (3) coupling strength shows the order of combinations of units of coupling into a graded scale between groups of papers; and (4) a coupling criterion is the way by which the coupling units are combined between two or more papers. Kessler's classic paper an bibliographic coupling between scientific papers proposes the following two graded criteria: Criterion A: A number of papers constitute a related group GA if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to a given test paper P0. The coupling strength between P0 and any member of GA is measured by the number of coupling units n between them. G(subA)(supn) is that portion of GA that is linked to P0 through n coupling units; Criterion B: A number of papers constitute a related group GB if each member of the group has at least one coupling unit to every other member of the group.

0.014560816 = product of:
  0.029121632 = sum of:
    0.029121632 = product of:
      0.058243264 = sum of:
        0.058243264 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058243264 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, 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=5275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 16:20:22

0.014560816 = product of:
  0.029121632 = sum of:
    0.029121632 = product of:
      0.058243264 = sum of:
        0.058243264 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058243264 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.013728068 = product of:
  0.027456136 = sum of:
    0.027456136 = product of:
      0.054912273 = sum of:
        0.054912273 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054912273 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.013728068 = product of:
  0.027456136 = sum of:
    0.027456136 = product of:
      0.054912273 = sum of:
        0.054912273 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054912273 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30.12.2007 11:22:39

0.012134012 = product of:
  0.024268024 = sum of:
    0.024268024 = product of:
      0.048536047 = sum of:
        0.048536047 = weight(_text_:22 in 2734) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048536047 = score(doc=2734,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2734, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2734)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major research policy objective, but does it deliver higher quality research? This study uses citation analysis to examine the Web of Science (WoS) Information Science & Library Science subject category (IS&LS) to ascertain whether, in general, more highly cited articles are more highly collaborative than other articles. It consists of two investigations. The first investigation is a longitudinal comparison of the degree and proportion of collaboration in five strata of citation; it found that collaboration in the highest four citation strata (all in the most highly cited 22%) increased in unison over time, whereas collaboration in the lowest citation strata (un-cited articles) remained low and stable. Given that over 40% of the articles were un-cited, it seems important to take into account the differences found between un-cited articles and relatively highly cited articles when investigating collaboration in IS&LS. The second investigation compares collaboration for 35 influential information scientists; it found that their more highly cited articles on average were not more highly collaborative than their less highly cited articles. In summary, although collaborative research is conducive to high citation in general, collaboration has apparently not tended to be essential to the success of current and former elite information scientists.

Date

22. 3.2009 12:43:51

0.012012059 = product of:
  0.024024118 = sum of:
    0.024024118 = product of:
      0.048048235 = sum of:
        0.048048235 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048048235 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17741053 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05066224 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, 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=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 3.2003 19:22:48