Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015326426 = product of:
  0.030652853 = sum of:
    0.030652853 = product of:
      0.061305705 = sum of:
        0.061305705 = weight(_text_:web in 6008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061305705 = score(doc=6008,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 6008, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Author Cocitation Analysis (ACA) and Web Colink Analysis (WCA) are examined as sister techniques in the related fields of bibliometrics and webometrics. Comparisons are made between the two techniques based on their data retrieval, mapping, and interpretation procedures, using mathematics as the subject in focus. An ACA is carried out and interpreted for a group of participants (authors) involved in an Isaac Newton Institute (2000) workshop-Singularity Theory and Its Applications to Wave Propagation Theory and Dynamical Systems-and compared/contrasted with a WCA for a list of international mathematics research institute home pages on the Web. Although the practice of ACA may be used to inform a WCA, the two techniques do not share many elements in common. The most important departure between ACA and WCA exists at the interpretive stage when ACA maps become meaningful in light of citation theory, and WCA maps require interpretation based on hyperlink theory. Much of the research concerning link theory and motivations for linking is still new; therefore further studies based on colinking are needed, mainly map-based studies, to understand what makes a Web colink structure meaningful.

0.01083742 = product of:
  0.02167484 = sum of:
    0.02167484 = product of:
      0.04334968 = sum of:
        0.04334968 = weight(_text_:web in 4771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04334968 = score(doc=4771,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4771, 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=4771)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliometric evaluations of research outputs in the social sciences and humanities are challenging due to limitations associated with Web of Science data; however, background literature has shown that scholars are interested in stimulating improvements. We give special attention to book reviews processed by Web of Sciencehistory and literature journals, focusing on two types: Type I (i.e., reference to book only) and Type II (i.e., reference to book and other scholarly sources). Bibliometric data are collected and analyzed for a large set of reviews (1981-2009) to observe general publication patterns and patterns of citedness and co-citedness with books under review. Results show that reviews giving reference only to the book (Type I) are published more frequently while reviews referencing the book and other works (Type II) are more likely to be cited. The referencing culture of the humanities makes it difficult to understand patterns of co-citedness between books and review articles without further in-depth content analyses. Overall, citation counts to book reviews are typically low, but our data showed that they are scholarly and do play a role in the scholarly communication system. In the disciplines of history and literature, where book reviews are prominent, counting the number and type of reviews that a scholar produces throughout his/her career is a positive step forward in research evaluations. We propose a new set of journal quality indicators for the purpose of monitoring their scholarly influence.