Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :

  • Author or Editor: Theo Kretschmer x
  • Mathematics and Statistics x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract  

About ten years ago a new research field called “webometrics” emerged. Similarities between methods used in webometrics and scientometrics or informetrics are evident from the literature. Are there also similarities between scientometric and Web indicators of collaboration for possible use in technology policy making? Usually, the bibliometric method used to study collaboration is the investigation of co-authorships. In this paper, Web hyperlinks and Web visibility indicators are examined to establish their usefulness as indicators of collaboration and to explore whether similarities exist between Web-based structures and bibliographic structures. Three empirical studies of collaboration between institutions and individual scientists show that hyperlink structures at the Web don’t reflect collaboration structures collected by bibliographic data. However Web visibility indicators of collaboration are different from hyperlinks and can be successfully used as Web indicators of collaboration.

Restricted access
Scientometrics
Authors:
Hildrun Kretschmer
,
Ramesh Kundra
,
Donald deB. Beaver
, and
Theo Kretschmer

Abstract

The causes of gender bias favoring men in scientific and scholarly systems are complex and related to overall gender relationships in most of the countries of the world. An as yet unanswered question is whether in research publication gender bias is equally distributed over scientific disciplines and fields or if that bias reflects a closer relation to the subject matter. We expected less gender bias with respect to subject matter, and so analysed 14 journals of gender studies using several methods and indicators. The results confirm our expectation: the very high position of women in co-operation is striking; female scientists are relatively overrepresented as first authors in articles. Collaboration behaviour in gender studies differs from that of authors in PNAS. The pattern of gender studies reflects associations between authors of different productivity, or “masters” and “apprentices” but the PNAS pattern reflects associations between authors of roughly the same productivity, or “peers”. It would be interesting to extend the analysis of these three-dimensional collaboration patterns further, to see whether a similar characterization holds, what it might imply about the patterns of authorship in different areas, what those patterns might imply about the role of collaboration, and whether there are differences between females and males in collaboration patterns.

Restricted access