Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03223474 = product of:
  0.12893896 = sum of:
    0.12893896 = weight(_text_:here in 1258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12893896 = score(doc=1258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36196628 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.373531 = idf(docFreq=559, maxDocs=44421)
          0.067360975 = queryNorm
        0.35621813 = fieldWeight in 1258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.373531 = idf(docFreq=559, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1258)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study presented here shows a method based on network theory to identify the most important journals related to a given journal, the seed journal. In just one simple network map, we get the relevant citation environment of a specific seed journal. It is of interest to librarians, publishers, scientists and science policy makers. These journal citation network maps are useful for these various stakeholders in and around the science system, as they provide information on the level of journal connections, unlike the more traditional structures such as the Journal Subject Categories, the classification system applied in the products of Thomson Reuters (Journal Citation Reports, Web of Science, etc.). These network maps show the closest relations journals can have, based on citation relations, suggesting influence relations between journals in such a way that traditional field boundaries are transcended.

0.03223474 = product of:
  0.12893896 = sum of:
    0.12893896 = weight(_text_:here in 458) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12893896 = score(doc=458,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36196628 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.373531 = idf(docFreq=559, maxDocs=44421)
          0.067360975 = queryNorm
        0.35621813 = fieldWeight in 458, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.373531 = idf(docFreq=559, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=458)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article1 describes the possibilities to analyze open access (OA) publishing in the Netherlands in an international comparative way. OA publishing is now actively stimulated by Dutch science policy, similar to the United Kingdom. We conducted a bibliometric baseline measurement to assess the current situation, to be able to measure developments over time. We collected data from various sources, and for three different smaller European countries (the Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland). Not all of the analyses for this baseline measurement are included here. The analysis presented in this article focuses on the various ways OA can be defined using the Web of Science, limiting the analysis mainly to Gold OA. From the data we collected we can conclude that the way OA is currently registered in various electronic bibliographic databases is quite unclear, and various methods applied deliver results that are different, although the impact scores derived from the data point in the same direction.

0.026862282 = product of:
  0.10744913 = sum of:
    0.10744913 = weight(_text_:here in 3759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10744913 = score(doc=3759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.36196628 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.373531 = idf(docFreq=559, maxDocs=44421)
          0.067360975 = queryNorm
        0.29684845 = fieldWeight in 3759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.373531 = idf(docFreq=559, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3759)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The representation of science as a citation density landscape and the study of scaling rules with the field-specific citation density as a main topological property was previously analyzed at the level of research groups. Here, the focus is on the individual researcher. In this new analysis, the size dependence of several main bibliometric indicators for a large set of individual researchers is explored. Similar results as those previously observed for research groups are described for individual researchers. The total number of citations received by scientists increases in a cumulatively advantageous way as a function of size (in terms of number of publications) for researchers in three areas: Natural Resources, Biology & Biomedicine, and Materials Science. This effect is stronger for researchers in low citation density fields. Differences found among thematic areas with different citation densities are discussed.