This study explores the intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of Knowledge Management in its early stage of development. Intellectual structure is established by a principal component analysis applied to an author co-citation frequency matrix. The author co-citation frequencies were derived from the 1994-1998 academic literature and captured by the single search phrase of Knowledge Management. Four factors were labeled Knowledge Management, Organizational Learning, Knowledge-based Theories, and The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Organizations. The interdisciplinary breadth surrounding Knowledge Management mainly occurs in the discipline of management. Empirical evidence suggests that the discipline of Computer Science is not a key contributor as originally hypothesized.
Bibliometric technique of citation analysis was applied to the data of five psychological periodical literature. The distribution
of citations frequencies was statistically tested and the obsolescence factors were determined. The relation between the growth
and obsolescence has been studied, and it has been observed that “higher the growth of literature, higher the obsolescence
as well as higher the half life.”
Authors:G. Folly, B. Hajtman, J. Nagy, and I. Ruff
A sample of 80 Hungarian scientists, authors or co-authors of a total number of 6273 papers—published between 1930–1976—has been analysed. Citation data to eachpaper were collected form the 1964–76 SCI's by manual search. Citation counts were distinguished with respect to the following categories: (I) the set of cited authors has element(s) common with the set of citing authors (self citation), (II) condition I is not satisfied, but the cited author under study and at least one of the citing authors were co-authors prior to the publication of the cited paper, (III) none of the former criteria is satisfied. The yearly average citation frequency of a paper was not corrected for obsolescence, since there is no evidence that the decay of citation frequency with time is independent of the absolute citedness of the paper. Individual performance has been measured (a) by the sum of the vearly average typeIII fractional citation frequencies over all of the author's papers, (b) by the sum of the yearly average citation frequency normalized to one single-authored paper per year over the period of the author's activity, (c) by the same as ina, but summed up only over the most highly cited papers scattering upwards from the individual's own average, (d) by the fractional authorship, and (e) by the number of items in the author's publication list. The first three parameters seem to be applicable in measuring the utility of the individual's scientific contribution with slightly different emphasis on different aspects. These parameters are uncorrelated with those measuring the output of individuals.
The assumption underlying citation analysis is that the citing authors select their references in a rational manner. The present study, based on a very homogeneous collection of clinical trials from a meta-analysis, provides a partial verification of this idea: citing authors prefer large studies to smaller ones, they also seem to prefer studies representing the minority view of the research issue, perhaps in order to make their presentation more balanced. On the other hand, in this instance the inclusion of a placebo in the study design does not affect citation frequency. Furthermore, the conjecture that heuristic value is a main determinant of citability is not settled.
We develop and discuss the theoretical basis of a new criterion for ranking scientific institutions. Our novel index, which
is related to the h-index, provides a metric which removes the size dependence. We discuss its mathematical properties such
as merging rules of two sets of papers and analyze the relations between the underlying rank/citation-frequency law and the
h-index. The proposed index should be seen as a complement to the h-index, to compare the scientific production of institutions
(universities, laboratories or journals) that could be of disparate sizes.
The research output of the Danish Technical University (DTUa) has been studied as an aspect of the organization's research policy and visibility in its international context. Papers
published in the three-year period (1992–94) were grouped according to 20 clusters of research areas. Using citation analysis
techniques, the dynamics of citation frequencies, and a number of other features of the research system, like self-citation,
research collaborations, relative impact on the international literature, etc., could be studied. The methods can be used
to analyze institutional and national research efforts and to monitor effects of changing policies.
This paper sets out to explore the patterns of technological change and knowledge spillover in the field of flat panel display
(FPD) technology, along with the catching-up behavior of latecomers, through the analysis of US patents and patent citations
between 1976 and 2005. Our results show that: (i) the catching-up by FPD technology latecomers began at the transition stage
(1987-1996) when the dominant design became established in areas with high ‘revealed technology advantage’ (RTA); (ii) there
is no apparent localization of knowledge spillover amongst FPD technology latecomers; instead, higher citation frequencies
of forerunners’ patents were found in latecomers’ FPD patents during the transition (1987–1996) and post-dominant design (1997–2005)
stages and; and (iii) a few extraordinary peaks were found in the citation frequency of forerunners’ patents at long citation
lags in latecomers’ FPD patents, particularly during the transition stage (1987–1996), indicative of the knowledge threshold
which latecomers need to cross in order to catch up with forerunners.
The acceptance rate of articles which are collaboratively authored tends to be higher than that for single-authored papers, thereby suggesting a generally positive relationship between collaboration and quality. The analysis of ten-year citation rates of 270 randomly selected articles in three applied fields likewise shows a similar relationship, with somewhat higher citation frequencies for multi-authored papers than for single-authored ones. The relationships persist whether self-citations are included or excluded. However, these differences are not statistically significant for articles in clinical psychology or in educational measurement. Only multi-authored articles in management science show a statistically significant higher citation rate. Other aspects of the collaborative process and effects are discussed.
Authors:Wang-Huu Hsieh, Wen-Ta Chiu, Yee-Shuan Lee, and Yuh-Shan Ho
A bibliometric analysis was performed to assess the quantitative trend of Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA) treatment research, including intravenous injection of indomethacin and surgery. The documents studied were retrieved from the Science Citation Index (SCI) for the period from 1991 to 2002. The publication pattern concerning authorship, collaboration, original countries, citation frequency, document type, language of publication, distribution of journals, page count and the most frequently cited papers were performed. The results indicated that either treatment was not the recent emphasis of PDA research. The publishing countries of both treatments have also denoted that these researches were mostly done in Europe and North America. Both surgery and drug treatments had few international collaboration papers. English was the dominant language, and collaboration of two to six authors was the most popular level of co-authorship.
Collaboration between researchers and between research organizations is generally considered a desirable course of action,
in particular by some funding bodies. However, collaboration within a multidisciplinary community, such as the Computer–Human
Interaction (CHI) community, can be challenging. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the CHI conference proceedings to
determine if papers that have authors from different organization or countries receive more citations than papers that are
authored by members of the same organization. There was no significant difference between these three groups, indicating that
there is no advantage for collaboration in terms of citation frequency. Furthermore, we tested if papers written by authors
from different organizations or countries receive more best paper awards or at least award nominations. Papers from only one
organization received significantly fewer nominations than collaborative papers.