Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024233207 = product of:
  0.048466414 = sum of:
    0.048466414 = product of:
      0.09693283 = sum of:
        0.09693283 = weight(_text_:web in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09693283 = score(doc=1729,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.5701118 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To explore the possible facilitative role of the Internet in the process of research collaboration, this study endeavored to systematically compare the phenomenon of co-authorship and the impacts of co-authorship between pre-web and post-web stages in the field of information systems. Three hypotheses were proposed in this study. First, research collaboration increases in the post-web stage relative to the pre-web stage. Second, research collaboration is positively related to research impact, operationally defined as the number of citations. Lastly, the positive relationship between research collaboration and research impact is stronger in the post-web stage than that in the pre-web stage. Articles published in the field of information systems in both time periods were collected to test the hypotheses. The empirical results strongly support H1 and H2, showing that co-authorship increases in the post-web stage, and positively correlates with citations received by information systems articles. The positive effects of interdisciplinary collaborations and collaborations among multiple authors are enhanced in the post-web stage, but such enhancement is not found for international collaboration. H3 is partially supported.

0.017135466 = product of:
  0.03427093 = sum of:
    0.03427093 = product of:
      0.06854186 = sum of:
        0.06854186 = weight(_text_:web in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06854186 = score(doc=537,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Internet has substantially increased the online accessibility of scholarly publications and allowed researchers to access relevant information efficiently across different journals and databases (Costa & Meadows, ). Because of online accessibility, academic researchers tend to read more, and reading has become more superficial (Olle & Borrego, ), such that information overload has become an important issue. Given this circumstance, how the Internet affects knowledge transfer, or, more specifically, the citation behavior of researchers, has become a recent focus of interest. This study assesses the effects of the Internet on citation patterns in terms of 4 characteristics of cited documents: topic relevance, author status, journal prestige, and age of references. This work hypothesizes that academic scholars cite more topically relevant articles, more articles written by lower status authors, articles published in less prestigious journals, and older articles with online accessibility. The current study also hypothesizes that researcher knowledge level moderates such Internet effects. We chose the "IT and Group" subject area and collected 241 documents published in the pre-web period (1991-1995) and 867 documents published in the web-prevalent period (2006-2010) in the Web of Science database. The references of these documents were analyzed to test the proposed hypotheses, which are significantly supported by the empirical results.

0.01083742 = product of:
  0.02167484 = sum of:
    0.02167484 = product of:
      0.04334968 = sum of:
        0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04334968 = score(doc=4942,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The counting of papers and citations is fundamental to the assessment of research productivity and impact. In an age of increasing scientific collaboration across national borders, the counting of papers produced by collaboration between multiple countries, and citations of such papers, raises concerns in country-level research evaluation. In this study, we compared the number counts and country ranks resulting from five different counting methods. We also observed inflation depending on the method used. Using the 1989 to 2008 physics papers indexed in ISI's Web of Science as our sample, we analyzed the counting results in terms of paper count (research productivity) as well as citation count and citation-paper ratio (CP ratio) based evaluation (research impact). The results show that at the country-level assessment, the selection of counting method had only minor influence on the number counts and country rankings in each assessment. However, the influences of counting methods varied between paper count, citation count, and CP ratio based evaluation. The findings also suggest that the popular counting method (whole counting) that gives each collaborating country one full credit may not be the best counting method. Straight counting that accredits only the first or the corresponding author or fractional counting that accredits each collaborator with partial and weighted credit might be the better choices.

Object

Web of Science

0.010587957 = product of:
  0.021175914 = sum of:
    0.021175914 = product of:
      0.042351827 = sum of:
        0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042351827 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:11:29

0.009195855 = product of:
  0.01839171 = sum of:
    0.01839171 = product of:
      0.03678342 = sum of:
        0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03678342 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using a database of 1.4 million papers indexed by Web of Science, we examined the global trends in publication inequality and international collaboration in physics. The publication output and citations received by authors hosted in each country were taken into account. Although inequality decreased over time, further progress toward equality has somewhat abated in recent years. The skewedness of the global distribution in publication output was shown to be correlated with article impact, that is, the inequality is more significant in articles of higher impact. It was also observed that, despite the trend toward more equalitarian distribution, scholarly participation in physics is still determined by a select group. Particularly noteworthy has been China's rapid growth in publication outputs and a gradual improvement in its impact. Finally, the data also suggested regional differences in scientific collaboration. A distinctively high concentration of transnational collaboration and publication performance was found among EU countries.

0.008823298 = product of:
  0.017646596 = sum of:
    0.017646596 = product of:
      0.03529319 = sum of:
        0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03529319 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33