Information retrieval and informetries: The application of informetrie methods in digital libraries;Information retrieval und informetrie: Zur anwendung informetrischer methoden in digitalen bibliotheken

Historical Social Research

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 282-354

  Schaer, Philipp ^a  

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

Author keywords

Bradford's Law; Digital libraries; Information retrieval; Informetries; Lotka's Law; Power Law; Zipf's Law

Indexed keywords

EID: 84979792203     PISSN: 01726404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Adamic, Lada A. 2000. Zipf, Power-laws, and Pareto - a ranking tutorial. (Zugegriffen: 18. März 2011).
2. Alonso, Omar, Ralf Schenkel, und Martin Theobald. 2010. Crowdsourcing Assessments for XML Ranked Retrieval. In Advances in Information Retrieval, hg. v. Cathal Gurrin, Yulan He, Gabriella Kazai, Udo Kruschwitz, Suzanne Little, Thomas Roelleke, Stefan Rüger, und Keith van Rijsbergen, 5993: 602-6. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. (Zugegriffen: 4. Mai 2012).
3. Anderson, Rick. 2011. The Crisis in Research Librarianship. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 37 (4): 289-90 .
4. Arms, William. 2000. Digital libraries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
5. Bao, Shenghua, Guirong Xue, Xiaoyuan Wu, Yong Yu, Ben Fei, und Zhong Su. 2007. Optimizing web search using social annotations. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, 501-10. WWW '07. New York, NY: ACM , .
6. Beel, Jöran, und Bela Gipp. 2009. Google Scholar's Ranking Algorithm: An Introductory Overview. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI'09), 230-41. International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Juli.
7. Benz, Dominik, Andreas Hotho, Robert Jäschke, Beate Krause, Folke Mitzlaff, Christoph Schmitz, und Gerd Stumme. 2010. The social bookmark and publication management system bibsonomy. The VLDB Journal 19 (6): 849-75 .
8. Te Boekhorst, Peter, Matthias Kayß, und Roswitha Poll. 2003. Nutzungsanalyse des Systems der überregionalen Literatur- und Informationsversorgung: Teil I: Informationsverhalten und Informationsbedarf der Wissenschaft. Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Münster, infas Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft GmbH (Zugegriffen: 10. Dezember 2012).
9. Borlund, Pia. 2003. The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54 (10): 913-25 .
10. Bradford, Samuel C. 1934. Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering 137: 85-6.
11. Buckley, Chris. 2009. Why current IR engines fail. Information Retrieval 12 (6): 652-65. .
12. Buckley, Chris, und Ellen M Voorhees. 2000. Evaluating evaluation measure stability. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, 33-40. SIGIR '00. New York, NY: ACM. .
13. Buckley, Chris und Ellen M. Voorhees. 2004. Retrieval evaluation with incomplete information. In Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, 25-32. SIGIR '04. New York, NY: ACM , .
14. Calhoun, Karen, Joanne Cantrell, Peggy Gallagher, und Janet Hawk. 2009. Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want. OCLC Report. OCLC Report. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC (Zugegriffen: 23. Juni 2011).
15. Chowdhury, Gobinda G. 2010. Introduction to modern information retrieval, 3rd ed. London: Facet.
16. Clauset, Aaron, Cosma Rohilla Shalizi, und M. E. J. Newman. 2009. Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Review 51 (4): 661-703 .
17. Cleverdon, Cyril W. 1960. The ASLIB Cranfield Research Project on the Comparative Efficiency of Indexing Systems. Aslib Proceedings 12 (12): 421-31 .
18. Crook, Thomas, Brian Frasca, Ron Kohavi, und Roger Longbotham. 2009. Seven pitfalls to avoid when running controlled experiments on the web. Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. KDD '09: 1105-14 .
19. Csányi, Gábor, und Balazs Szendrodblaci. 2004. Structure of a large social network. Physical Review E 69 (3): 036131 .
20. Egghe, Leo. 2005. Power Laws in the Information Production Process: Lotkaian Infometrics. Library and Information Science Series. Oxford: Elsevier.
21. Egghe, Leo. 2009. Lotkaian informetrics and applications to social networks. Bulletin of the Belgian Mathematical Society - Simon Stevin 16 (4): 689-703.
22. Fain, Daniel C, und Jan O. Pedersen. 2006. Sponsored search: A brief history. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 32 (2): 12-3 .
23. Fang, Hui, Tao Tao, und Chengxiang Zhai. 2011. Diagnostic Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 29 (2): 7:1-7:42 .
24. Ferber, Reginald. 2003. Information Retrieval: Suchmodelle und Data-Mining-Verfahren für Textsammlungen und das Weh. Heidelberg: dpunkt Verlag.
25. Fox, Edward A., Marcos Andre Goncalves, und Rao Shen. 2012. Theoretical Foundations for Digital Libraries: The 5S Approach. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
26. Fuhr, Norbert. 2004. Theorie des Information Retrieval I: Modelle. In Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation, 5. Aufl., hg. v. Rainer Kuhlen, T. Seeger, und D. Strauch, 207-14. München: Saur.
27. Glänzel, Wolfgang. 2003. Bibliometrics as a Research Field . (Zugegriffen: 20. Dezember 2011).
28. Glänzel, Wolfgang. 2007. Characteristic scores and scales: A bibliometric analysis of subject characteristics based on long-term citation observation. Journal of Informetrics 1 (1): 92-102 .
29. Glänzel, Wolfgang, Frizo Janssens, und Bart Thijs. 2008. A comparative analysis of publication activity and citation impact based on the core literature in bioinformatics. Scientometrics 79 (1): 109-29 .
30. Google Scholar. 2011. About Google Scholar (Zugegriffen: 4. August 2011).
31. Hardy, Michael. 2010. Pareto's Law. The Mathematical Intelligencer 32 (3): 38-43 .
32. Harzing, Anne-Wil. 2010. The Publish or perish book: your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd.
33. Havemann, Frank. 2009. Einführung in die Bibliometrie. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung .
34. He, Zi-Lin. 2009. International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (10): 2151-64 .
35. Hienert, Daniel, Philipp Schaer, Johann Schaible, und Philipp Mayr. 2011. A Novel Combined Term Suggestion Service for Domain-Specific Digital Libraries. In Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, hg. v. Stefan Gradmann, Francesca Borri, Carlo Meghini, und Heiko Schuldt, 6966: 192-203. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer (Zugegriffen: 13. September 2011).
36. Hirsch, J. E. 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (46): 16569-72 .
37. Hjørland, Birger. 2000. Library and information science: practice, theory, and philosophical basis. Information Processing and Management 36 (3): 501-31 .
38. Hotho, Andreas, Robert Jäschke, Christoph Schmitz, und Gerd Stumme. 2006. Information Retrieval in Folksonomies: Search and Ranking. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, hg. v. York Sure und John Domingue, 4011: 411-26. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Heidelberg: Springer, Juni , .
39. Ingwersen, Peter. 2012. Bibliometrics/Scientometrics and IR A methodological bridge through visualization. Vortrag gehalten auf der PROMISE Winter School 2012, Januar, Zinal, Valais (Zugegriffen: 12. August 2012).
40. Ingwersen, Peter, und Kalervo Järvelin. 2005. The turn - integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Dordrecht: Springer.
41. Jacsó, Péter. 2008. Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review 32 (1): 102-14 .
42. Järvelin, Kalervo, und Jaana Kekäläinen. 2002. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 20 (4): 422-46 .
43. Jordy, Matthew L., Eileen L. McGrath, und John B. Rutledge. 1999. Book Reviews As a Tool for Assessing Publisher Reputation. College & Research Libraries 60 (2): 132-42. (Zugegriffen: 3. Mai 2011).
44. Juran, Joseph M. 1954. Universals in management planning and controlling. Management Review 43 (11): 748-61.
45. Kahn, Robert E., und Vinton G. Cerf. 1988. The Digital Library Project Volume I: The World of Knowbots (DRAFT): An Open Architecture For a Digital Library System and a Plan For Its Development. Corporation for National Research Initiatives .
46. Kelly, Diane. 2009. Methods for Evaluating Interactive Information Retrieval Systems with Users. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 3 (1): 1-224 .
47. Kleinberg, Jon M. 1999. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. J. ACM 46 (5): 604-32 .
48. Kürsten, Jens, und Maximilian Eibl. 2011. A Large-Scale System Evaluation on Component-Level. In Advances in Information Retrieval, hg. v. Paul Clough, Colum Foley, Cathal Gurrin, Gareth Jones, Wessel Kraaij, Hyowon Lee, und Vanessa Mudoch, 6611: 679-82. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. (Zugegriffen: 12. Juni 2012).
49. Larsen, Birger. 2004. References and citations in automatic indexing and retrieval systems - experiments with the boomerang effect. PhD Thesis, Copenhagen, Denmark: Department of Information Studies, Royal School of Library and Information Science .
50. Lewandowski, Dirk. 2009. Ranking library materials. Library Hi Tech 27 (4): 584-93 .
51. Lotka, Alfred J. 1926. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 16 (12): 317-23.
52. Mandl, Thomas. 2006. Die automatische Bewertung der Qualität von Internet-Seiten im Information Retrieval. Habitilationsschrift, Universität Hildesheim.
53. Manning, Christopher D., Prabhakar Raghavan, und Hinrich Schütze. 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
54. Metzler, Donald. 2011. A Feature-Centric View of Information Retrieval. Bd. 27. The Information Retrieval Series. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
55. Milojević, Staša. 2010. Power law distributions in information science: Making the case for logarithmic binning. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61: 2417-25 .
56. Morris, Steven. A., und Gary G. Yen. 2004. Crossmaps: Visualization of overlapping relationships in collections of journal papers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (1): 5291-6 .
57. Mutschke, Peter, Philipp Mayr, Philipp Schaer, und York Sure. 2011. Science models as value-added services for scholarly information systems. Scientometrics 89 (1): 349-64 .
58. Neal, Diane Rasmussen, Hg. 2012. Indexing and Retrieval of Non-Text Information. Knowledge and Information / Studies in Information Science. De Gruyter - Saur.
59. Newman, M. E. J. 2005. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf s law. Contemporary Physics 46: 323-51 .
60. Page, Lawrence, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, und Terry Winograd. 1999. The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. Technical Report. Stanford InfoLab .
61. Peters, Isabella. 2010. Folksonomies. Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0. Berlin: De Gruyter - Saur.
62. Peters, Isabella, und Wolgang G. Stock. 2010. Power tags in information retrieval. Library Hi Tech 28 (1): 81-93.
63. Potter, William Gray. 1981. Lotka's Law Revisited. Library Trends 30 (1): 21-39. (Zugegriffen: 12. April 2011).
64. Redner, Sidney. 2010. On the meaning of the h-index. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2010 (16. März): L03005 .
65. Van Rijsbergen, C. J. 1974. Foundation of Evaluation. Journal of Documentation 30 (4): 365-73 .
66. Robertson, Stephen E. 1977. Theories and Models in Information Retrieval. Journal of Documentation 33 (2): 126-48.
67. Robertson, Stephen E., Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, und Mike Gatford. 1995. Okapi at TREC-3. In Proceedings of 3rd Text Retrieval Conference, 109-2. (Zugegriffen: 10. Oktober 2012).
68. Robertson, Stephen E., und Hugo Zaragoza. 2010. The Probabilistic Relevance Framework: BM25 and Beyond. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 3 (4): 333-89 .
69. Sanderson, Mark. 2010. Test Collection Based Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 4 (4): 247-375 .
70. Sanderson, Mark, und Ian Soboroff. 2007. Problems with Kendall's tau. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, 839-40. SIGIR '07. New York, NY: ACM , .
71. Saracevic, Tefko. 2007. Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II: nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (13): 1915-33 .
72. Saracevic, Tefko. 2009. Introduction: the framework for digital library evaluation. In Evaluation of Digital Libraries: An Insight to Useful Applications and Methods, hg. v. Giannis Tsakonas und Christos Papatheodorou, 1-13. Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Ltd.
73. Schaer, Philipp. 2013a. Applied Informetrics for Digital Libraries: An Overview on Problems, Foundations and Current Approaches. Historical Social Research 38 (3): 267-81.
74. Schaer, Philipp. 2013b. Der Nutzen informetrischer Analysen und nicht-textueller Dokumentattribute für das Information Retrieval in digitalen Bibliotheken. Dissertation, Koblenz: Universität Koblenz-Landau, 27. Mai (Zugegriffen: 19. August 2013).
75. Schaer, Philipp, Philipp Mayr, und Thomas Luke. 2012. Extending Term Suggestion with Author Names. In Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries, hg. v. Panayiotis Zaphiris, George Buchanan, Edie Rasmussen und Fernando Loizides, 7489: 317-22. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
76. Scharnhorst, Andrea, und Eugene Garfield. 2010. Tracing scientific influence. Journal of Dynamics of Socio-Economic Systems 2 (1): 1-33.
77. Schlögl, Christian, und Juan Gorraiz. 2012. Sind Downloads die besseren Zeitschriftennutzungsdaten? Ein Vergleich von Download und Zitationsindikatoren. Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie 59 (2): 87-95.
78. Seadle, Michael. 2009. Digitale Bibliothek. In Lexikon der Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft (LBI), hg. v. Konrad Umlauf und Stefan Gradmann, 3: 216-7. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann Verlag.
79. Siegfried, Doreen, und Elisabeth Flieger. 2011. World Wide Wissenschaft - Wie professionell Forschende im Internet arbeiten. ZBW - Leibniz-Informations- zentrum Wirtschaft .
80. De Solla Price, Derek J. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
81. Song, Ruihua, Qingwei Guo, Ruochi Zhang, Guomao Xin, Ji-Rong Wen, Yong Yu, und Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2011. Select-the-Best-Ones: A new way to judge relative relevance. Information Processing & Management 47 (1): 37-52 .
82. Spärck Jones, Karen. 1972. A Statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of Documentation 28 (1): 11-21.
83. Sühl-Strohmenger, Wilfried. 2008. Digitale Welt und Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek-Informationspraxis im Wandel: Determinanten, Ressourcen, Dienste, Kompetenzen: eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
84. Tague-Sutcliffe, Jean. 1992. An introduction to informetrics. Information Processing & Management 28 (1): 1-3 .
85. Umstätter, Walther. 1999. Zum Thema Lotka's law. 23. Februar .
86. Umstätter, Walther. 2003. Das Principle of Least Effort in der Wissenschaft. Vortrag im Berliner Bibliothekswissenschaftlichen Kolloquium gehalten auf der Berliner Bibliothekswissenschaftlichen Kolloquiums (BBK), 7. Oktober, Saur-Bibliothek des Instituts für Bibliothekswissenschaft .
87. Voorhees, Ellen M. 1998. Variations in Relevance Judgments and the Measurement of Retrieval Effectiveness. In SIGIR'98: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACMSIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, August 24-28 1998, Melbourne, Australia, 315-23. New York, NY: ACM .
88. Voorhees, Ellen M. 2000. Variations in relevance judgments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. Information Processing & Management 36 (5): 697-716 .
89. Voß, Jakob. 2007. Visualisierung der ZDB. Verbund-Wiki GBV. 3. April (Zugegriffen: 14. Dezember 2011).
90. Webber, William, Alistair Moffat, Justin Zobel, und Tetsuya Sakai. 2008. Precision-at-ten considered redundant. In Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, 695-6. SIGIR'08. Singapore: ACM .
91. White, Howard D. 2007. Combining bibliometrics, information retrieval, and relevance theory, Part 1: First examples of a synthesis: Research Articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58: 536-59 .
92. Wong, William, Hanna Stelmaszewska, Balbir Barn, Naziin Bhimani, und Barn Sukhbinder. 2010. JISC user behaviour observational study: User behaviour in resource discovery. JISC (Zugegriffen: 23. Juni 2011).
93. Yin, Li-chun, Hildrun Kretschmer, Robert A Hanneman, und Ze-yuan Liu. 2006. Connection and stratification in research collaboration: an analysis of the COLLNET network. Information Processing & Management 42 (6): 1599-613 .
94. Zanardi, Valentina, und Licia Capra. 2008. Social ranking: uncovering relevant content using tag-based recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems, 51-8. RecSys'08. Lausanne, Switzerland: ACM .
95. Zhang, Yan. 2008. Undergraduate students mental models of the Web as an information retrieval system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 (13): 2087-98 .
96. Zhu, Jianhan, Dawei Song, und Stefan Rüger. 2009. Integrating multiple windows and document features for expert finding. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (4): 694-715 .
97. Zipf, George K. 1949. Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
98. Zobel, Justin, Alistair Moffat, und Laurence A. F Park. 2009. Against recall: is it persistence, cardinality, density, coverage, or totality? S1GIR Forum 43 (1): 3-8 .