Search (140 results, page 1 of 7)

0.048505466 = product of:
  0.19402187 = sum of:
    0.19402187 = weight(_text_:having in 793) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19402187 = score(doc=793,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.5607334 = fieldWeight in 793, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=793)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Investigates whether a correlation exists between a UK university's academic excellence, as judged by its Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) ratings, and the amount spent on its library. Considers both macro and micro levels, looking at institutions as a whole, and on a departmental level within the area of archaeology. As well as comparing all the higher education institutions, this group is broken down further, comparing the ratings and spending of the Russell and 94 Groups. There are correlations between the different groups of higher education institutions and RAE ratings. However, rather than high RAE ratings causing high library spending or high library spending causing high RAE ratings, it is likely that they are indirectly linked, good universities having both high RAE ratings and good libraries and poor universities having low RAE ratings and less money spent on libraries. Also describes how libraries in universities with archaeology departments allocate budgets.

0.048505466 = product of:
  0.19402187 = sum of:
    0.19402187 = weight(_text_:having in 1235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19402187 = score(doc=1235,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.5607334 = fieldWeight in 1235, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1235)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A journal may be considered as having dimension-specific prestige when its score, based on a given journal ranking model, exceeds a threshold value. But a journal has multidimensional prestige only if it is a prestigious journal with respect to a number of dimensions-e.g., Institute for Scientific Information Impact Factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, and article influence score. The multidimensional prestige of influential journals takes into account the fact that several prestige indicators should be used for a distinct analysis of the impact of scholarly journals in a subject category. After having identified the multidimensionally influential journals, their prestige scores can be aggregated to produce a summary measure of multidimensional prestige for a subject category, which satisfies numerous properties. Using this measure of multidimensional prestige to rank subject categories, we have found the top scientific subject categories of Web of Knowledge as of 2010.

0.04042122 = product of:
  0.16168489 = sum of:
    0.16168489 = weight(_text_:having in 3374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16168489 = score(doc=3374,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.4672778 = fieldWeight in 3374, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3374)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Four subjects - ecology, applied mathematics, sociology, and economics - were selected to assess whether there is a citation advantage between journal articles that have an open-access (OA) version on the Internet compared to those articles that are exclusively toll access (TA). Citations were counted using the Web of Science, and the OA status of articles was determined by searching OAIster, OpenDOAR, Google, and Google Scholar. Of a sample of 4,633 articles examined, 2,280 (49%) were OA and had a mean citation count of 9.04 whereas the mean for TA articles was 5.76. There appears to be a clear citation advantage for those articles that are OA as opposed to those that are TA. This advantage, however, varies between disciplines, with sociology having the highest citation advantage, but the lowest number of OA articles, from the sample taken, and ecology having the highest individual citation count for OA articles, but the smallest citation advantage. Tests of correlation or association between OA status and a number of variables were generally found to weak or inconsistent. The cause of this citation advantage has not been determined.

0.040014964 = product of:
  0.16005985 = sum of:
    0.16005985 = weight(_text_:having in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16005985 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.4625814 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the second bibliometric paper SzavaKovtas uses ``indirectcollective references, ICR'' to mean such instances as those in which an author refers to, ``the references contained therein,'' when referring to another source. Having previously shown a high instance of occurrences in Physical Reviews, he now uses the January 1997 issues of 40 journals from the ISI physics category plus two optics journals, an instrumentation journal, and a physics journal launched in 1997, to locate ICR. The phenomena exists in all but one of the sampled journals and in the next, but unsampled, issue of that journal. Overall 17% of papers sampled display ICR with little fluctuation within internal categories.

0.040014964 = product of:
  0.16005985 = sum of:
    0.16005985 = weight(_text_:having in 910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16005985 = score(doc=910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.4625814 = fieldWeight in 910, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=910)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes a study using citation analysis to select journals that could be used in the veterinary medical field. The study determines the principal journals to which a veterinary medical library should subscribe, thus obtaining the highest possible utility of materials. By using a database of 105 journals for a period of five years (1982-86), citation data were applied on the Bradford bibliography and Bradford-Zipf distribution to determine the ranking of journals in the field and the "core journals". Reports the results of the study which discovered that the Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa is the most cited journal with 305 citations, and the core journals were eight in number, having 1,067 citations representing 66.2 per cent of the total citations.

0.034298543 = product of:
  0.13719417 = sum of:
    0.13719417 = weight(_text_:having in 5592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13719417 = score(doc=5592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.39649835 = fieldWeight in 5592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5592)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research has been identified as a critical means of addressing some of our planet's most urgent environmental problems. Yet relatively little is known about the processes and impact of interdisciplinary approaches to environmental sciences. This study used citation analysis and ordinary least squares regression to investigate the relationship between an article's citation rate and its degree of interdisciplinarity in one area of environmental science; viz., forestry. 3 types of interdisciplinarity were recognized - authorspip, subject matter, and cited literature - and each was quantified using Brillouin's diversity index. Data consisted of more than 750 articles published in the journal 'Forest Science' during the 10year period 1985-1994. The results indicate that borrowing was the most influencial method of interdisciplinary information transfer. Articles that drew information from a diverse set of journals were cited with greater frequency than articles having smaller or more narrowly focused bibliographies. This finding provides empirical evidence that interdisciplinary methods have made a measurable and positive impact on the forestry literature

0.02858212 = product of:
  0.11432848 = sum of:
    0.11432848 = weight(_text_:having in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11432848 = score(doc=2350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Stressing that some universities have adopted unrealistic requirements for tenure of information systems (IS) faculty members, a recent editorial in MIS Quarterly contends that the group of premier IS journals needs to be generally recognized as having more than just two members. This article introduces the publication power approach to identifying the premier IS journals, and it does indeed find that there are more than two. A journal's publication power is calculated from the actual publishing behaviors of full-time, tenured IS faculty members at a sizable set of leading research universities. The underlying premise is that these researchers produce excellent work, collectively spanning the IS field's subject matter, and that the greatest concentrations of their collective work appear in highest visibility, most important journals suitable for its subject matter. The new empirically based approach to identifying premier IS journals (and, more broadly, identifying journals that figure most prominently in publishing activity of tenured IS researchers) offers an attractive alternative to promulgations by individuals or cliques (possibly based on outdated tradition or vested interests), to opinion surveys (subjective, possibly ill-informed, vague about rating criteria, and/or biased in various ways), and to citation analyses (which ignore semantics of references and, in the case of ISI impact factors, have additional problems that cast considerable doubt on their meaningfulness within the IS field and its subdisciplines). Results of the publication power approach can be applied and supplemented according to needs of a particular university in setting its evaluation standards for IS tenure, promotion, and merit decisions.

0.02858212 = product of:
  0.11432848 = sum of:
    0.11432848 = weight(_text_:having in 3782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11432848 = score(doc=3782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 3782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3782)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We investigate the relationships between the citation impacts of scientific papers and the sources of funding that are acknowledged as having supported those publications. We examine several relationships potentially associated with funding, including first citation, total citations, and the chances of becoming highly cited. Furthermore, we explore the links between citations and types of funding by organization and also with combined measures of funding. In particular, we examine the relationship between funding intensity and funding variety and citation. Our empirical work focuses on six small advanced European economies, applying a zero inflated negative binomial model to a set of more than 240,000 papers authored by researchers from these countries. We find that funding is not related to the first citation but is significantly related to the number of citations and top percentile citation impact. Additionally, we find that citation impact is positively related to funding variety and negatively related with funding intensity. Finally there is an inverse relationship between the relative frequency of funding and citation impact. The results presented in the paper provide insights for the design of research programs and the structure of research funding and for the behavior and strategies of research and sponsoring organizations.

0.02858212 = product of:
  0.11432848 = sum of:
    0.11432848 = weight(_text_:having in 4833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11432848 = score(doc=4833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 4833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4833)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Outstanding scholars have generally been regarded as having special influence that enables them to publish articles in top-tier journals and obtain higher levels of research funding. This study proposes that the social effect of an outstanding scholar, which is derived from the halo effect and the Matthew effect, is favorable for the expansion of the scholar's personal research network and will improve that scholar's future research accomplishments. Data for a total of 101 outstanding information systems scholars and 36 ordinary scholars were collected. The definition of an outstanding scholar is based on the quality and quantity of their publications. The results show that the social effect of the outstanding scholars is beneficial for the development of a research network, including 3 types of network structures. In addition, being highly connected with colleagues leads to higher research accomplishments in terms of quantity, while being connected with colleagues from different sub-fields leads to higher research accomplishments in terms of novelty. Additionally, this study found that the social effect of outstanding scholars is a double-edged sword, with both positive and negative impacts on research accomplishments. The findings contribute several theoretical and practical implications for future research.

0.02858212 = product of:
  0.11432848 = sum of:
    0.11432848 = weight(_text_:having in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11432848 = score(doc=368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Social media datasets are not always completely replicable. Having to adhere to requirements of platforms such as Twitter, researchers can only release a list of unique identifiers, which others can then use to recollect the data themselves. This leads to subsets of the data no longer being available, as content can be deleted or user accounts deactivated. To quantify the long-term impact of this in the replicability of datasets, we perform a longitudinal analysis of the persistence of 30 Twitter datasets, which include more than 147 million tweets. By recollecting Twitter datasets ranging from 0 to 4 years old by using the tweet IDs, we look at four different factors quantifying the extent to which recollected datasets resemble original ones: completeness, representativity, similarity, and changingness. Although the ratio of available tweets keeps decreasing as the dataset gets older, we find that the textual content of the recollected subset is still largely representative of the original dataset. The representativity of the metadata, however, keeps fading over time, both because the dataset shrinks and because certain metadata, such as the users' number of followers, keeps changing. Our study has important implications for researchers sharing and using publicly shared Twitter datasets in their research.

0.02858212 = product of:
  0.11432848 = sum of:
    0.11432848 = weight(_text_:having in 952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11432848 = score(doc=952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 952, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two-thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.

0.02858212 = product of:
  0.11432848 = sum of:
    0.11432848 = weight(_text_:having in 1770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11432848 = score(doc=1770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.3304153 = fieldWeight in 1770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1770)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper investigates different uses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in national journal rankings and discusses the merits of supplementing metrics with expert assessment. Our focus is national journal rankings used as evidence to support decisions about the distribution of institutional funding or career advancement. The seven countries under comparison are China, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Poland, and Turkey-and the region of Flanders in Belgium. With the exception of Italy, top-tier journals used in national rankings include those classified at the highest level, or according to tier, or points implemented. A total of 3,565 (75.8%) out of 4,701 unique top-tier journals were identified as having a JIF, with 55.7% belonging to the first Journal Impact Factor quartile. Journal rankings in China, Flanders, Poland, and Turkey classify journals with a JIF as being top-tier, but only when they are in the first quartile of the Average Journal Impact Factor Percentile. Journal rankings that result from expert assessment in Denmark, Finland, and Norway regularly classify journals as top-tier outside the first quartile, particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We conclude that experts, when tasked with metric-informed journal rankings, take into account quality dimensions that are not covered by JIFs.

0.022865694 = product of:
  0.091462776 = sum of:
    0.091462776 = weight(_text_:having in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.091462776 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34601447 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.26433223 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.981156 = idf(docFreq=304, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The goal of the scientometric analysis presented in this article was to investigate international and regional (i.e., German-language) periodicals in the field of library and information science (LIS). This was done by means of a citation analysis and a reader survey. For the citation analysis, impact factor, citing half-life, number of references per article, and the rate of self-references of a periodical were used as indicators. In addition, the leading LIS periodicals were mapped. For the 40 international periodicals, data were collected from ISI's Social Sciences Citation Index Journal Citation Reports (JCR); the citations of the 10 German-language journals were counted manually (overall 1,494 source articles with 10,520 citations). Altogether, the empirical base of the citation analysis consisted of nearly 90,000 citations in 6,203 source articles that were published between 1997 and 2000. The expert survey investigated reading frequency, applicability of the journals to the job of the reader, publication frequency, and publication preference both for all respondents and for different groups among them (practitioners vs. scientists, librarians vs. documentalists vs. LIS scholars, public sector vs. information industry vs. other private company employees). The study was conducted in spring 2002. A total of 257 questionnaires were returned by information specialists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Having both citation and readership data, we performed a comparative analysis of these two data sets. This enabled us to identify answers to questions like: Does reading behavior correlate with the journal impact factor? Do readers prefer journals with a short or a long half-life, or with a low or a high number of references? Is there any difference in this matter among librarians, documentalists, and LIS scholars?

0.019060155 = product of:
  0.07624062 = sum of:
    0.07624062 = weight(_text_:und in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07624062 = score(doc=5133,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = 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

0.01886466 = product of:
  0.07545864 = sum of:
    0.07545864 = weight(_text_:und in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07545864 = score(doc=76,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = 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

0.016506579 = product of:
  0.066026315 = sum of:
    0.066026315 = weight(_text_:und in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066026315 = score(doc=1154,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = 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

0.016204374 = product of:
  0.064817496 = sum of:
    0.064817496 = weight(_text_:und in 1875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064817496 = score(doc=1875,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = 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.

0.015562551 = product of:
  0.062250204 = sum of:
    0.062250204 = weight(_text_:und in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062250204 = score(doc=438,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.48516542 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Qualität und Information: Deutscher Dokumentartag 1993; Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, 28.-30.9.1993. Hrsg.: W. Neubauer

0.015562551 = product of:
  0.062250204 = sum of:
    0.062250204 = weight(_text_:und in 505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062250204 = score(doc=505,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.48516542 = fieldWeight in 505, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=505)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der Artikel ist Teil einer größeren Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Open Access Publishing zur Erhöhung der Publikations- und damit Karrierechancen von Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen. Es werden drei inhaltlich und methodisch ähnliche sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften verglichen: das Open-Access-Journal "Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung" ("FQS") und die zwei Closed-Access-/Hybridjournale "Zeitschrift für qualitative Forschung" und "Sozialer Sinn". Erhoben wird (a) der jeweilige Frauenanteil unter Redaktions- und Beiratsmitgliedern dieser drei Zeitschriften (N=184 insgesamt), (b) aufwändig rekonstruiert und analysiert wird die Genderstruktur der Autorenschaften aller in den drei Zeitschriften zwischen 2000 und 2008 veröffentlichten Beiträge (Totalerhebung, N=1557 insgesamt).

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 62(2011) H.4, S.173-176

0.014705229 = product of:
  0.058820914 = sum of:
    0.058820914 = weight(_text_:und in 779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058820914 = score(doc=779,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.12830718 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.05785077 = queryNorm
        0.45843822 = fieldWeight in 779, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=779)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Zahlreiche Autoren, Autorinnen und kritische Initiativen (z. B. DORA) kritisieren den zu hohen und schädlichen Einfluss quantitativer Daten, welche akademische Instanzen für Evaluationszwecke heranziehen. Wegen des großen Einflusses der globalen Zitatdatenbanken von Thomson Reuters (bzw. Clarivate Analytics) auf die Bewertung der wissenschaftlichen Leistungen von Forscherinnen und Forschern habe ich extensive qualitative und quantitative Fallstudien zur Datenqualität des Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) durchgeführt, d. h. die Originaleinträge mit den SSCI-Datensätzen verglichen. Diese Fallstudien zeigten schwerste - nie in der Literatur erwähnte - Fehler, Verstümmelungen, Phantomautoren, Phantomwerke (Fehlerrate in der Fallstudie zu Beebe 2010, Harvard Law Review: 99 Prozent). Über die verwendeten Datenerfassungs- und Indexierungsverfahren von TR bzw. Clarivate Analytics ist nur wenig bekannt. Ein Ergebnis meiner Untersuchungen: Bei der Indexierung von Verweisen in Fußnoten (wie in den Rechtswissenschaften, gerade auch der USA, vorgeschrieben) scheinen die verwendeten Textanalyse-Anwendungen und -Algorithmen völlig überfordert. Eine Qualitätskontrolle scheint nicht stattzufinden. Damit steht der Anspruch des SSCI als einer multidisziplinären Datenbank zur Debatte. Korrekte Zitate in den Fußnoten des Originals können zu Phantom-Autoren, Phantom-Werken und Phantom-Referenzen degenerieren. Das bedeutet: Sämtliche Zeitschriften und Disziplinen, deren Zeitschriften und Büchern dieses oder ähnliche Zitierverfahren verwenden (Oxford-Style), laufen Gefahr, aufgrund starker Zitatverluste falsch, d. h. unterbewertet, zu werden. Wie viele UBOs (Unidentifiable Bibliographic Objects) sich in den Datenbanken SCI, SSCI und AHCI befinden, wäre nur mit sehr aufwändigen Prozeduren zu klären. Unabhängig davon handelt es sich, wie bei fast allen in meinen Untersuchungen gefundenen fatalen Fehlern, eindeutig um endogene Fehler in den Datenbanken, die nicht, wie oft behauptet, angeblich falsch zitierenden Autorinnen und Autoren zugeschrieben werden können, sondern erst im Laufe der Dateneingabe und -verarbeitung entstehen.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.5/6, S.241-248