Citation analysis of <i>Collection Building</i> during 2005‐2012
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the journal bibliometric characteristics of Collection Building and the subject relationship with other disciplines by citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach This study explores the distribution of articles and subjects of references and analyses the various aspects of Collection Building from 2005‐2012. There are 179 articles in Collection Building in eight selected years. In total, 32 issues pertaining to eight volumes of Collection Building were consulted and relevant details of the citations at the end of each article were noted on an excel sheet. The recorded data were analysed, interpreted and tabulated. Findings The results of this study revealed that 179 articles were consulted from eight volumes (2005‐2012) which carried 2,388 citations including 85 self‐citations. The majority of articles (30.17 per cent) recorded between 10‐19 range of citations per article followed by (28.50 per cent) 1‐9 range. The majority of articles were contributed by single authors (65.92 per cent) and majority of contributors were from the USA (69.96 per cent) followed by Canada (3.95 per cent) and India (3.95 per cent) respectively. Journal articles (42.71 per cent) were the most cited source materials, followed by online and electronic sources (25.80 per cent), books including edited books (20.44 per cent), newspapers (5.23 per cent) and so on. Out of 179 articles, tje majority of articles (33.52 per cent) were Research papers followed by Case study (30.73 per cent), Literature review (12.85 per cent) and so on. The majority of articles (66.48 per cent) were recorded between 6‐10 pages, followed by 25.70 per cent articles between 1‐5 pages. Out of 1,020 journal articles, Collection Building (9.02 per cent) was the top ranked journal, followed by The Journal of Academic Librarianship (5.0 per cent) and College & Research Libraries (4.22 per cent). Research limitations/implications Research was limited to the journal entitled Collection Building during eight years (2005‐2012). In total, 32 issues and 179 articles were covered by the study. Originality/value The outcome of the study is an original research work with citation analysis of Collection Building . It highlights the study of 179 articles of Collection Building in various ways.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,021 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle