Science models as value-added services for scholarly information systems

Scientometrics

Volumn 89, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 349-364

  Mutschke, Peter ^a   Mayr, Philipp ^a   Schaer, Philipp ^a   Sure, York ^a  

^a GESIS LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

Evaluation; IR; Re ranking; Retrieval system; Science models; Value added services

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052634541     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0430-x     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Al-Maskari, A., Sanderson, M., & Clough, P. (2008). Relevance judgments between TREC and Non-TREC assessors. Proceedings of SIGIR, 2009, 683-684.
2. Alonso, O., & Mizzaro, S. (2009). Can we get rid of TREC assessors? Using Mechanical Turk for relevance assessment. In Proceedings of the SIGIR 2009 workshop on the future of IR evaluation (pp. 15-16).
3. Barabasi, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311, 590-614.
4. Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., & Zitt, M. (2007). A modular sequence of retrieval procedures to delineate a scientific field: from vocabulary to citations and back. In E. Torres-Salinas & H. F. Moed (Eds.), Proceedings of the11th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (ISSI 2007), Madrid, Spain, 25-27 June 2007 (pp. 74-84).
5. Bates, M. J. (1990). Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? Information Processing & Management, 26, 575-591.
6. Bates, M. J. (2002). Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS 4).
7. Bavelas, A. (1948). A mathematical model for group structure. Applied Anthropology, 7, 16-30.
8. Beaver, D. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60(3), 309-408.
9. Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science, 5, 133-143.
10. Blair, D. C. (1990). Language and representation in information retrieval. Amsterdam, NY: Elsevier.
11. Blair, D. C. (2002). The challenge of commercial document retrieval. Part II. A strategy for document searching based on identifiable document partitions. Information Processing and Management, 38(2), 293-304.
12. Blair, D. C. (2003). Information retrieval and the philosophy of language. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 3-50.
13. Börner, K., & Scharnhorst, A. (2009). Visual conceptualizations and models of science. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 161-172.
14. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? JASIST, 61(12), 2389-2404.
15. Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137(3550), 85-86.
16. Bradford, S. C. (1948). Documentation. London: Lockwood.
17. Brookes, B. C. (1977). Theory of the Bradford Law. Journal of Documentation, 33(3), 180-209.
18. Buckland, M., Chen, A., Chen, H.-M., Kim, Y., Lam, B., Larson, R., et al. (1999). Mapping entry vocabulary to unfamiliar metadata vocabularies. D-Lib Magazine, 5(1).
19. Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191-235.
20. Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., & Pellegrino, D. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 191-209.
21. Efthimiadis, E. N. (1996). Query expansion. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information systems and technology (ARIST) (Vol. 31, pp. 121-187). Information Today.
22. Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378-382.
23. Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40, 35-41.
24. Freeman, L. C. (1978/1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
25. Freeman, L. C. (1980). The gatekeeper, pair-dependency and structural centrality. Quality & Quantity, 14, 585-592.
26. Fuhr, N., Schaefer, A., Klas, C.-P., & Mutschke, P. (2002). Daffodil: An integrated desktop for supporting high-level search activities in federated digital libraries. In M. Agosti & C. Thanos (Eds.), Research and advanced technology for digital libraries. 6th European conference, EDCL 2002, proceedings (pp. 597-612). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
27. Glänzel, W., Janssens, F., & Thijs, B. (2009). A comparative analysis of publication activity and citation impact based on the core literature in bioinformatics. Scientometrics, 79(1), 109-129.
28. He, Z.-L. (2009). International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority. JASIST, 60(10), 2151-2164.
29. Hjørland, B., & Nicolaisen, J. (2005). Bradford's law of scattering: ambiguities in the concept of subject. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science.
30. Huberman, B. A., & Adamic, L. A. (2004). Information dynamics in the networked world. Lect. Notes Phys. (Vol. 650, pp. 371-398).
31. Jiang, Y. (2008). Locating active actors in the scientific collaboration communities based on interaction topology analysis. Scientometrics, 74(3), 471-482.
32. Lang, F. R., & Neyer, F. J. (2004). Kooperationsnetzwerke und Karrieren an deutschen Hochschulen. KfZSS, 56(3), 520-538.
33. Leydesdorff, L., de Moya-Anegón, F., & Guerrero-Bote, V. P. (2010). Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data: A comparison with the Journal Citation Reports of the ISI. JASIST, 61(2), 352-369.
34. Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 317-325.
35. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41(2005), 1462-1480.
36. Lu, H., & Feng, Y. (2009). A measure of authors' centrality in co-authorship networks based on the distribution of collaborative relationships. Scientometrics, 81(2), 499-511.
37. Mayr, P. (2008). An evaluation of Bradfordizing effects. In Proceedings of WIS 2008, Berlin, fourth international conference on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics & ninth COLLNET meeting. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
38. Mayr, P. (2009). Re-Ranking auf Basis von Bradfordizing für die verteilte Suche in Digitalen Bibliotheken. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
39. Mayr, P., Mutschke, P., & Petras, V. (2008). Reducing semantic complexity in distributed digital libraries: Treatment of term vagueness and document re-ranking. Library Review, 57(3), 213-224.
40. Mitra, M., Singhal, A., & Buckley C. (1998). Improving automatic query expansion. In Proceedings of SIGIR (pp. 206-214).
41. Mutschke, P. (1994). Processing scientific networks in bibliographic databases. In H. H. Bock, et al. (Eds.), Information systems and data analysis. Prospects-foundations-applications. Proceedings 17th annual conference of the GfKl 1993 (pp. 127-133). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
42. Mutschke, P. (2001). Enhancing information retrieval in federated bibliographic data sources using author network based stratagems. In P. Constantopoulos & I. T. Sölvberg (Eds.), Research and advanced technology for digital libraries: 5th European conference, ECDL 2001, Proceedings (Vol. 2163, pp. 287-299). Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
43. Mutschke, P. (2004a). Autorennetzwerke: Verfahren der Netzwerkanalyse als Mehrwertdienste für Informationssysteme. Bonn: Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften (IZ-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 32).
44. Mutschke, P. (2004b). Autorennetzwerke: Netzwerkanalyse als Mehrwertdienst für Informationssysteme. In B. Bekavac, et al. (Eds.), Information zwischen Kultur und Marktwirtschaft: Proceedings des 9. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2004) (pp. 141-162). Konstanz: UVK Verl.-Ges.
45. Mutschke, P. (2010). Zentralitäts- und Prestigemaße. In R. Häußling & C. Stegbauer (Eds.), Handbuch Netzwerkforschung (pp. 365-378). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
46. Mutschke, P., & Quan-Haase, A. (2001). Collaboration and cognitive structures in social science research fields: Towards socio-cognitive analysis in information systems. Scientometrics, 52(3), 487-502.
47. Mutschke, P., & Renner, I. (1995). Akteure und Themen im Gewaltdiskurs: Eine Strukturanalyse der Forschungslandschaft. In E. Mochmann & U. Gerhardt (Eds.), Gewalt in Deutschland: Soziale Befunde und Deutungslinien (pp. 147-192). Munich: Oldenburg Verlag.
48. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS, 98, 404-409.
49. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. PNAS, 101, 5200-5205.
50. Petras, V. (2006). Translating dialects in search: Mapping between specialized languages of discourse and documentary languages. Berkley: University of California.
51. Plaunt, C., & Norgard, B. A. (1998). An association based method for automatic indexing with a controlled vocabulary. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(August 1998), 888-902.
52. Schaer, P., Mayr, P., & Mutschke, P. (2010). Implications of inter-rater agreement on a student information retrieval evaluation. In M. Atzmüller, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of LWA2010-Workshop-Woche: Lernen, Wissen & Adaptivität.
53. Shiri, A., & Revie, C. (2006). Query expansion behavior within a thesaurus-enhanced search environment: A user-centered evaluation. JASIST, 57(4), 462-478.
54. Sonnewald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 41(1), 643-681.
55. Voorhees, E. M., & Harman, D. K. (Eds.). (2005). TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
56. White, H. D. (1981). 'Bradfordizing' search output: how it would help online users. Online Review, 5(1), 47-54.
57. White, R. W., & Marchionini, G. (2007). Examining the effectiveness of real-time query expansion. Information Processing & Management, 43(3), 685-704.
58. Worthen, D. B. (1975). The application of Bradford's law to monographs. Journal of Documentation, 31(1), 19-25.
59. Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. JASIST, 60(10), 21-07-2118.
60. Yin, L., Kretschmer, H., Hannemann, R. A., & Liu, Z. (2006). Connection and stratification in research collaboration: An analysis of the COLLNET network. Information Processing & Management, 42, 1599-1613.
61. Zhou, D., Orshansky, S. A., Zha, H., & Giles, C. L. (2007). Co-ranking authors and documents in a heterogeneous network. In Proceedings of the 2007 seventh IEEE international conference on data mining (pp. 739-744).