Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Liu, X."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Zhang, C.; Liu, X.; Xu, Y.(C.); Wang, Y.: Quality-structure index : a new metric to measure scientific journal influence (2011) 0.02 
    0.017940167 = product of:
  0.08970083 = sum of:
    0.08970083 = weight(_text_:index in 4366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08970083 = score(doc=4366,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 4366, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4366)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    An innovative model to measure the influence among scientific journals is developed in this study. This model is based on the path analysis of a journal citation network, and its output is a journal influence matrix that describes the directed influence among all journals. Based on this model, an index of journals' overall influence, the quality-structure index (QSI), is derived. Journal ranking based on QSI has the advantage of accounting for both intrinsic journal quality and the structural position of a journal in a citation network. The QSI also integrates the characteristics of two prevailing streams of journal-assessment measures: those based on bibliometric statistics to approximate intrinsic journal quality, such as the Journal Impact Factor, and those using a journal's structural position based on the PageRank-type of algorithm, such as the Eigenfactor score. Empirical results support our finding that the new index is significantly closer to scholars' subjective perception of journal influence than are the two aforementioned measures. In addition, the journal influence matrix offers a new way to measure two-way influences between any two academic journals, hence establishing a theoretical basis for future scientometrics studies to investigate the knowledge flow within and across research disciplines.
  2. Liu, X.; Bu, Y.; Li, M.; Li, J.: Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration (2024) 0.02 
    0.015222736 = product of:
  0.07611368 = sum of:
    0.07611368 = weight(_text_:index in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07611368 = score(doc=1202,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Collaboration across disciplines is a critical form of scientific collaboration to solve complex problems and make innovative contributions. This study focuses on the association between multidisciplinary collaboration measured by coauthorship in publications and the disruption of publications measured by the Disruption (D) index. We used authors' affiliations as a proxy of the disciplines to which they belong and categorized an article into multidisciplinary collaboration or monodisciplinary collaboration. The D index quantifies the extent to which a study disrupts its predecessors. We selected 13 journals that publish articles in six disciplines from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database and then constructed regression models with fixed effects and estimated the relationship between the variables. The findings show that articles with monodisciplinary collaboration are more disruptive than those with multidisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we uncovered the mechanism of how monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration by exploring the references of the sampled publications.
  3. Jiang, Z.; Liu, X.; Chen, Y.: Recovering uncaptured citations in a scholarly network : a two-step citation analysis to estimate publication importance (2016) 0.00 
    0.001937643 = product of:
  0.009688215 = sum of:
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=3018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    12. 6.2016 20:31:29

Authors

Years