Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010728499 = product of:
  0.021456998 = sum of:
    0.021456998 = product of:
      0.042913996 = sum of:
        0.042913996 = weight(_text_:web in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042913996 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag werden am Beispiel von Onkologie- und Pharmaziezeitschriften Unterschiede zwischen und Gemeinsamkeiten von Downloads und Zitaten herausgearbeitet. Die Download-Daten wurden von Elsevier (ScienceDirect) bereitgestellt, die Zitationsdaten wurden den Journal Citation Reports entnommen bzw. aus dem Web of Science recherchiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen einen hohen Zusammenhang zwischen Download- und Zitationshäufigkeiten, der für die relativen Zeitschriftenindikatoren und auf Artikelebene etwas geringer ist. Deutliche Unterschiede bestehen hingegen zwischen den Altersstrukturen der herunter-geladenen und der zitierten Artikel. Elektronische Zeitschriften haben maßgeblich dazu beigetragen, dass aktuelle Literatur früher aufgegriffen und deutlich öfter zitiert wird, im Schnitt hat sich das Alter der zitierten Literatur in den letzten zehn Jahren aber kaum verändert.

0.007058638 = product of:
  0.014117276 = sum of:
    0.014117276 = product of:
      0.028234553 = sum of:
        0.028234553 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028234553 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, 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=4633)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.0061305705 = product of:
  0.012261141 = sum of:
    0.012261141 = product of:
      0.024522282 = sum of:
        0.024522282 = weight(_text_:web in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024522282 = score(doc=4141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Following the transition from print journals to electronic (hybrid) journals in the past decade, usage metrics have become an interesting complement to citation metrics. In this article we investigate the similarities of and differences between usage and citation indicators for pharmacy and pharmacology journals and relate the results to a previous study on oncology journals. For the comparison at journal level we use the classical citation indicators as defined in the Journal Citation Reports and compute the corresponding usage indicators. At the article level we not only relate download and citation counts to each other but also try to identify the possible effect of citations upon subsequent downloads. Usage data were provided by ScienceDirect both at the journal level and, for a few selected journals, on a paper-by-paper basis. The corresponding citation data were retrieved from the Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports. Our analyses show that electronic journals have become generally accepted over the last decade. While the supply of ScienceDirect pharma journals rose by 50% between 2001 and 2006, the total number of article downloads (full-text articles [FTAs]) multiplied more than 5-fold in the same period. This also impacted the pattern of scholarly communication (strong increase in the immediacy index) in the past few years. Our results further reveal a close relation between citation and download frequencies. We computed a high correlation at the journal level when using absolute values and a moderate to high correlation when relating usage and citation impact factors. At the article level the rank correlation between downloads and citations was only medium-sized. Differences between downloads and citations exist in terms of obsolescence characteristics. While more than half of the articles are downloaded in the publication year or 1 year later, the median cited half-life was nearly 6 years for our journal sample. Our attempt to reveal a direct influence of citations upon downloads proved not to be feasible.