Search (142 results, page 1 of 8)

0.14060028 = product of:
  0.28120056 = sum of:
    0.21078834 = weight(_text_:joint in 218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21078834 = score(doc=218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.48274595 = fieldWeight in 218, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=218)
    0.07041222 = weight(_text_:und in 218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07041222 = score(doc=218,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.4538307 = fieldWeight in 218, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=218)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die International Mathematical Union (IMU) hat in Kooperation mit dem "International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM)" und dem "Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS)" einen Bericht mit dem Titel Citation Statistics herausgegeben, für den das "Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research", bestehend aus Robert Adler, John Ewing (Chair) und Peter Taylor verantwortlich zeichnet. Wir drucken im Folgenden zunächst das "Executive Summary" dieses Berichts ab und geben anschließend einen Überblick über einige der wichtigsten Argumente und Ergebnisse des Berichts. Die darin wiedergegebenen Tabellen und Grafiken sind dem Bericht entnommen, wir danken den Autoren für die Genehmigung des Abdrucks des Executive Summary und dieser Tabellen und Grafiken. Soweit wir den Bericht in Übersetzung zitieren, handelt es sich nicht um eine autorisierte Übersetzung.

0.060441937 = product of:
  0.120883875 = sum of:
    0.04809068 = weight(_text_:und in 4081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04809068 = score(doc=4081,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.3099608 = fieldWeight in 4081, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4081)
    0.07279319 = weight(_text_:headings in 4081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07279319 = score(doc=4081,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.21444786 = fieldWeight in 4081, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4081)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die Arbeit analysiert die dynamische Entwicklung und den Gebrauch von Thesaurusbegriffen. Zusätzlich konzentriert sie sich auf die Faktoren, die die Zahl von Indexbegriffen pro Dokument oder Zeitschrift beeinflussen. Als Untersuchungsobjekt dienten der MeSH und die entsprechende Datenbank "MEDLINE". Die wichtigsten Konsequenzen sind: 1. Der MeSH-Thesaurus hat sich durch drei unterschiedliche Phasen jeweils logarithmisch entwickelt. Solch einen Thesaurus sollte folgenden Gleichung folgen: "T = 3.076,6 Ln (d) - 22.695 + 0,0039d" (T = Begriffe, Ln = natürlicher Logarithmus und d = Dokumente). Um solch einen Thesaurus zu konstruieren, muss man demnach etwa 1.600 Dokumente von unterschiedlichen Themen des Bereiches des Thesaurus haben. Die dynamische Entwicklung von Thesauri wie MeSH erfordert die Einführung eines neuen Begriffs pro Indexierung von 256 neuen Dokumenten. 2. Die Verteilung der Thesaurusbegriffe erbrachte drei Kategorien: starke, normale und selten verwendete Headings. Die letzte Gruppe ist in einer Testphase, während in der ersten und zweiten Kategorie die neu hinzukommenden Deskriptoren zu einem Thesauruswachstum führen. 3. Es gibt ein logarithmisches Verhältnis zwischen der Zahl von Index-Begriffen pro Aufsatz und dessen Seitenzahl für die Artikeln zwischen einer und einundzwanzig Seiten. 4. Zeitschriftenaufsätze, die in MEDLINE mit Abstracts erscheinen erhalten fast zwei Deskriptoren mehr. 5. Die Findablity der nicht-englisch sprachigen Dokumente in MEDLINE ist geringer als die englische Dokumente. 6. Aufsätze der Zeitschriften mit einem Impact Factor 0 bis fünfzehn erhalten nicht mehr Indexbegriffe als die der anderen von MEDINE erfassten Zeitschriften. 7. In einem Indexierungssystem haben unterschiedliche Zeitschriften mehr oder weniger Gewicht in ihrem Findability. Die Verteilung der Indexbegriffe pro Seite hat gezeigt, dass es bei MEDLINE drei Kategorien der Publikationen gibt. Außerdem gibt es wenige stark bevorzugten Zeitschriften."

Footnote

Dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft.

Imprint

Berlin : Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin / Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.045168933 = product of:
  0.18067573 = sum of:
    0.18067573 = weight(_text_:joint in 457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18067573 = score(doc=457,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.41378224 = fieldWeight in 457, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=457)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The use of Hirsch's h-index as a joint proxy of the impact and productivity of a scientist's research work continues to gain ground, accompanied by the efforts of bibliometrists to resolve some of its critical issues through the application of a number of more or less sophisticated variants. However, the literature does not reveal any appreciable attempt to overcome the objective problems of measuring h-indexes on a large scale for purposes of comparative evaluation. Scientists may succeed in calculating their own h-indexes but, being unable to compare them to those of their peers, they are unable to obtain truly useful indications of their individual research performance. This study proposes to overcome this gap, measuring the h- and Egghe's g-indexes of all Italian university researchers in the hard sciences over a 5-year window. Descriptive statistics are provided concerning all of the 165 subject fields examined, offering robust benchmarks for those who wish to compare their individual performance to those of their colleagues in the same subject field.

0.045168933 = product of:
  0.18067573 = sum of:
    0.18067573 = weight(_text_:joint in 546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18067573 = score(doc=546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.41378224 = fieldWeight in 546, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=546)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In his pioneering research, G.K. Zipf observed that more frequent words tend to have more meanings, and showed that the number of meanings of a word grows as the square root of its frequency. He derived this relationship from two assumptions: that words follow Zipf's law for word frequencies (a power law dependency between frequency and rank) and Zipf's law of meaning distribution (a power law dependency between number of meanings and rank). Here we show that a single assumption on the joint probability of a word and a meaning suffices to infer Zipf's meaning-frequency law or relaxed versions. Interestingly, this assumption can be justified as the outcome of a biased random walk in the process of mental exploration.

0.04503849 = product of:
  0.18015397 = sum of:
    0.18015397 = weight(_text_:headings in 1862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18015397 = score(doc=1862,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.5307314 = fieldWeight in 1862, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1862)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of the literature of Qigong: a relaxation technique used to teach patients to control their heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and other involuntary functions through controlles breathing. All articles indexed in the MEDLINE CD-ROM database, between 1965 and 1995 were identified using 'breathing exercises' MeSH term. The articles were analyzed for geographical and language distribution and a ranking exercise enabled a core list of periodicals to be identified. In addition, the study shed light on the changing frequency of the MeSH terms and evaluated the research areas by measuring the information from these respective MeSH headings

0.03860442 = product of:
  0.15441768 = sum of:
    0.15441768 = weight(_text_:headings in 1494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15441768 = score(doc=1494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1494, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Multiple perspectives on the nonlinear processes of medical innovations can be distinguished and combined using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the MEDLINE database. Focusing on three main branches-"diseases," "drugs and chemicals," and "techniques and equipment"-we use base maps and overlay techniques to investigate the translations and interactions and thus to gain a bibliometric perspective on the dynamics of medical innovations. To this end, we first analyze the MEDLINE database, the MeSH index tree, and the various options for a static mapping from different perspectives and at different levels of aggregation. Following a specific innovation (RNA interference) over time, the notion of a trajectory which leaves a signature in the database is elaborated. Can the detailed index terms describing the dynamics of research be used to predict the diffusion dynamics of research results? Possibilities are specified for further integration between the MEDLINE database on one hand, and the Science Citation Index and Scopus (containing citation information) on the other.

0.03860442 = product of:
  0.15441768 = sum of:
    0.15441768 = weight(_text_:headings in 1943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15441768 = score(doc=1943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1943, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1943)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

0.037640776 = product of:
  0.1505631 = sum of:
    0.1505631 = weight(_text_:joint in 2900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1505631 = score(doc=2900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.34481853 = fieldWeight in 2900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2900)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.037640776 = product of:
  0.1505631 = sum of:
    0.1505631 = weight(_text_:joint in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1505631 = score(doc=2960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.34481853 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study assessed the intermix of local citation analysis and survey of journal use and reading patterns for evaluating an academic library's research collection. Journal articles and their cited references from faculties at the University of New South Wales were downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) and journal impact factors from the Journal Citation Reports. The survey of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) academic staff asked both reader-related and reading-related questions. Both methods showed that academics in medicine published more and had more coauthors per paper than academics in the other faculties; however, when correlated with the number of students and academic staff, science published more and engineering published in higher impact journals. When recalled numbers of articles published were compared to actual numbers, all faculties over-estimated their productivity by nearly two-fold. The distribution of cited serial references was highly skewed with over half of the titles cited only once. The survey results corresponded with U.S. university surveys with one exception: Engineering academics reported the highest number of article readings and read mostly for research related activities. Citation analysis data showed that the UNSW library provided the majority of journals in which researchers published and cited, mostly in electronic formats. However, the availability of non-journal cited sources was low. The joint methods provided both confirmatory and contradictory results and proved useful in evaluating library research collections.

0.037640776 = product of:
  0.1505631 = sum of:
    0.1505631 = weight(_text_:joint in 3531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1505631 = score(doc=3531,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.34481853 = fieldWeight in 3531, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3531)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

International Conference on Digital Libraries: Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

0.037640776 = product of:
  0.1505631 = sum of:
    0.1505631 = weight(_text_:joint in 3346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1505631 = score(doc=3346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.34481853 = fieldWeight in 3346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3346)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In many scientific fields, the order of coauthors on a paper conveys information about each individual's contribution to a piece of joint work. We argue that in prior network analyses of coauthorship networks, the information on ordering has been insufficiently considered because ties between authors are typically symmetrized. This is basically the same as assuming that each coauthor has contributed equally to a paper. We introduce a solution to this problem by adopting a coauthorship credit allocation model proposed by Kim and Diesner (2014), which in its core conceptualizes coauthoring as a directed, weighted, and self-looped network. We test and validate our application of the adopted framework based on a sample data of 861 authors who have published in the journal Psychometrika. The results suggest that this novel sociometric approach can complement traditional measures based on undirected networks and expand insights into coauthoring patterns such as the hierarchy of collaboration among scholars. As another form of validation, we also show how our approach accurately detects prominent scholars in the Psychometric Society affiliated with the journal.

0.03011262 = product of:
  0.12045048 = sum of:
    0.12045048 = weight(_text_:joint in 4882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12045048 = score(doc=4882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.27585483 = fieldWeight in 4882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4882)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Statistical relationships between downloads from ScienceDirect of documents in Elsevier's electronic journal Tetrahedron Letters and citations to these documents recorded in journals processed by the Institute for Scientific Information/Thomson Scientific for the Science Citation Index (SCI) are examined. A synchronous approach revealed that downloads and citations show different patterns of obsolescence of the used materials. The former can be adequately described by a model consisting of the sum of two negative exponential functions, representing an ephemeral and a residual factor, whereas the decline phase of the latter conforms to a simple exponential function with a decay constant statistically similar to that of the downloads residual factor. A diachronous approach showed that, as a cohort of documents grows older, its download distribution becomes more and more skewed, and more statistically similar to its citation distribution. A method is proposed to estimate the effect of citations upon downloads using obsolescence patterns. It was found that during the first 3 months after an article is cited, its number of downloads increased 25% compared to what one would expect this number to be if the article had not been cited. Moreover, more downloads of citing documents led to more downloads of the cited article through the citation. An analysis of 1,190 papers in the journal during a time interval of 2 years after publication date revealed that there is about one citation for every 100 downloads. A Spearman rank correlation coefficient of 0.22 was found between the number of times an article was downloaded and its citation rate recorded in the SCI. When initial downloads-defined as downloads made during the first 3 months after publication-were discarded, the correlation raised to 0.35. However, both outcomes measure the joint effect of downloads upon citation and that of citation upon downloads. Correlating initial downloads to later citation counts, the correlation coefficient drops to 0.11. Findings suggest that initial downloads and citations relate to distinct phases in the process of collecting and processing relevant scientific information that eventually leads to the publication of a journal article.

0.027297448 = product of:
  0.10918979 = sum of:
    0.10918979 = weight(_text_:headings in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10918979 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present a model for estimating the probability that a pair of author names (sharing last name and first initial), appearing an two different Medline articles, refer to the same individual. The model uses a simple yet powerful similarity profile between a pair of articles, based an title, journal name, coauthor names, medical subject headings (MeSH), language, affiliation, and name attributes (prevalence in the literature, middle initial, and suffix). The similarity profile distribution is computed from reference sets consisting of pairs of articles containing almost exclusively author matches versus nonmatches, generated in an unbiased manner. Although the match set is generated automatically and might contain a small proportion of nonmatches, the model is quite robust against contamination with nonmatches. We have created a free, public service ("Author-ity": http://arrowsmith.psych.uic.edu) that takes as input an author's name given an a specific article, and gives as output a list of all articles with that (last name, first initial) ranked by decreasing similarity, with match probability indicated.

0.027297448 = product of:
  0.10918979 = sum of:
    0.10918979 = weight(_text_:headings in 3840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10918979 = score(doc=3840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 3840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3840)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.

0.027297448 = product of:
  0.10918979 = sum of:
    0.10918979 = weight(_text_:headings in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10918979 = score(doc=3224,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33944473 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."

0.023047809 = product of:
  0.092191234 = sum of:
    0.092191234 = weight(_text_:und in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092191234 = score(doc=5133,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.5942039 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Psychologie und Philosophie der Grazer Schule: eine Dokumentation zu Werk und Wirkungsgeschichte. Hrsg.: M. Stock und W.G. Stock

0.022811413 = product of:
  0.09124565 = sum of:
    0.09124565 = weight(_text_:und in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09124565 = score(doc=76,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.58810925 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Klassifikation und Erkenntnis I. Proc. der Plenarvorträge und der Sektion 1 "Klassifikation und Wissensgewinnung" der 3. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Königstein/Ts., 5.-6.4.1979

0.022584466 = product of:
  0.090337865 = sum of:
    0.090337865 = weight(_text_:joint in 3417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090337865 = score(doc=3417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43664446 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.20689112 = fieldWeight in 3417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.2418823 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3417)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Joint IMU/ICIAM/IMS-Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research : o.O.

0.019959986 = product of:
  0.079839945 = sum of:
    0.079839945 = weight(_text_:und in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079839945 = score(doc=1154,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.5145956 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 59(2012) H.2, S.87-95

0.019594556 = product of:
  0.07837822 = sum of:
    0.07837822 = weight(_text_:und in 1875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07837822 = score(doc=1875,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.15515085 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06995397 = queryNorm
        0.50517434 = fieldWeight in 1875, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1875)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Bereitstellung und Nutzung digitaler Bibliotheken entwickelt sich allmählich zum Standard der Literatur und Informationsversorgung in Wissenschaft und Forschung. Ganzen Disziplinen genügt oftmals die verfügbare digitale Information, Printmedien werden besonders im STM-Segment zu einem Nischenprodukt. Digitale Texte können beliebig eingebaut, kopiert und nachgenutzt werden, die Verlinkung zwischen Metadaten und Volltexten bringt weitere Nutzungsvorteile. Dabei sind die Angebote von Digital Libraries Bestandteil eines ganzheitlichen digitalen Ansatzes, wonach die elektronische Informations- und Literaturversorgung integraler Bestandteil von E-Science (Enhanced Science) oder Cyberinfrastructure darstellt. Hierbei verschmelzen dann Produktion, Diskussion, Distribution und Rezeption der wissenschaftlichen Inhalte auf einer einzigen digitalen Plattform. Damit sind dann nicht nur die Literatur- und Informationsversorgung (Digital Libraries), sondern auch die Wissenschaft selbst digital geworden. Diese dramatische Veränderung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation hat direkte Auswirkungen auf die Messung der Wissenschaftskommunikation, also auf die Evaluation von wissenschaftlichem Output. Bisherige Systeme der Wissenschaftsvermessung basieren hauptsächlich auf bibliometrischen Analysen, d.h. der Quantifizierung des Outputs und dessen Rezeption (Zitierhäufigkeit). Basis dafür sind insbesondere im STM-Bereich die international anerkannten Datenbanken des ISI (Thomson Scientific) insbesondere der Science Citation Index, SCI) oder vielleicht zukünftig das Konkurrenzprodukt SCOPUS des Wissenschaftskonzerns Reed Elsevier. Die Digitalisierung der Wissenschaft in ihrem kompletten Lebenszyklus, die zunehmende Nutzung und Akzeptanz von Dokumentenrepositorien, Institutsservern und anderen elektronischen Publikationsformen im Rahmen von E-Science erfordern und ermöglichen zugleich den Nachweis von Output und Rezeption durch neue bibliometrische Formen, etwa der Webometrie (Webmetrics). Im vorliegenden Paper haben wir hierzu Analysen durchgeführt und stellen eine Abschätzung vor, wie sich der Anteil von webometrisch erfassbarer und zugänglicher wissenschaftlicher Literatur im Vergleich zu Literatur, die mit den Standardsystemen nachgewiesen werden kann im Laufe der letzten Jahre verändert hat. Dabei haben wir unterschiedliche Disziplinen und Länder berücksichtigt. Zudem wird ein Vergleich der webometrischen Nachweisqualität so unterschiedlicher Systeme wie SCI, SCOPUS und Google Scholar vorgestellt.