Towards semantometrics: A new semantic similarity based measure for assessing a research publication's contribution

D-Lib Magazine

Volumn 20, Issue 11-12, 2014, Pages

  Knoth, Petr ^a   Herrmannova, Drahomira ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Research evaluation; Research publication datasets; Semantic similarity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84912049109     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10829873     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1045/november14-knoth     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Helmut A. Abt and Eugene Garfield. 2002. Is the Relationship Between Numbers of References and Paper Lengths the Same for All Sciences? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(13):1106-1112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.10151
2. Tomas C. Almind and Peter Ingwersen. 1997. Informetric analyses on the world wide web: methodological approaches to "webometrics". Journal of Documentation, 53(4):404-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007205
3. Douglas N Arnold and Kristine K Fowler. 2010. Nefarious numbers. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 58(3):434-437.
4. Marc Bertin, Iana Atanassova, Vincent Lariviere, and Yves Gingras. 2013. The distribution of references in scientific papers: An analysis of the IMRaD structure. In Proceedings of the 14th ISSI Conference, pages 591-603, Vienna, Austria.
5. Roger A Brumback. 2009. Impact factor wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back. Journal of Child Neurology, 24(3):260-2, March. http://doi.org/10.1177/0883073808331366
6. The PLoS Medicine Editors. 2006. The impact factor game. PLoS medicine, 3(6), June. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291
7. Eugene Garfield. 1955. Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159):108-11, October. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
8. Patrick Glenisson, Wolfgang Glanzel, and Olle Persson. 2005. Combining full-text analysis and bibliometric indicators. A pilot study. Scientometrics, 63(1):163-180. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0208-0
9. Ian Hargreaves. 2011. Digital Opportunity: A review of Intellectual Property and Growth. Technical report.
10. Dirk Holste, Ivana Roche, Marianne Hörlesberger, Dominique Besagni, Thomas Scherngell, Claire Francois, Pascal Cuxac, and Edgar Schiebel. 2011. A concept for Inferring "Frontier Research" in Research Project Proposals. In Proceedings of the 13th ISSI, pages 315-326, Durban, South Africa.
11. Intellectual Property Office. 2014. Implementing the Hargreaves review.
12. Petr Knoth and Zdenek Zdráhal. 2012. Core: Three access levels to underpin open access. D-Lib Magazine, 18(11/12). http://doi.org/10.1045/november2012-knoth
13. Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze. 2009. An Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, online edition.
14. Jeppe Nicolaisen. 2007. Citation Analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1):609-641. http://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2007.1440410120
15. Jason Priem and Bradely M. Hemminger. 2010. Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7), July.
16. Jason Priem, Dario Taraborelli, Paul Groth, and Cameron Neylon. 2010. Altmetrics: A manifesto.
17. Per Ottar Seglen. 1992. The Skewness of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9):628-638, October.
18. Per Ottar Seglen. 1997. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 314(February):498-502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
19. Rui Yan, Congrui Huang, Jie Tang, Yan Zhang, and Xiaoming Li. 2012. To Better Stand on the Shoulder of Giants. In Proceedings of the 12th Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pages 51-60, Washington, DC. ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2232817.2232831
20. Knoth, P., Rusbridge, A. and Russell, R. (2014), Open Mirror Feasibility Study, Appendix A: Technical Prototyping Report, Jisc report.