Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Aksnes, D.W."
  1. Aksnes, D.W.: When different persons have an identical author name : how frequent are homonyms? (2008) 0.00 
    0.0021981692 = product of:
  0.0043963385 = sum of:
    0.0043963385 = product of:
      0.008792677 = sum of:
        0.008792677 = weight(_text_:a in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008792677 = score(doc=1617,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The phenomenon that different persons may have the same author name (homonymy) represents a major problem for publication analysis at individual levels and for retriving publications based on author names more generally. In such cases, all publications from the persons sharing the name will be collected in search results. This makes it difficult to provide a true picture of a researcher's publication output. The present study examines how frequent homonyms occur in a population of more than 30,000 individuals. The population represents the entire set of research personell in Norway. It is found that 14% of the persons share their author name with one or more other individuals. For the remaining 86% there is a one-to-one correspondence. Thus, for the large majority of persons, homonyms do not represent a problem. In the final part of the article, potential practical applications of these findings are given particular attention.
    Type
    a
  2. Aksnes, D.W.; Rorstad, K.; Piro, F.; Sivertsen, G.: Are female researchers less cited? : a large-scale study of Norwegian scientists (2011) 0.00 
    0.0016616598 = product of:
  0.0033233196 = sum of:
    0.0033233196 = product of:
      0.006646639 = sum of:
        0.006646639 = weight(_text_:a in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006646639 = score(doc=639,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Numerous studies have shown that female scientists tend to publish significantly fewer publications than do their male colleagues. In this study, we have analyzed whether similar differences also can be found in terms of citation rates. Based on a large-scale study of 8,500 Norwegian researchers and more than 37,000 publications covering all areas of knowledge, we conclude that the publications of female researchers are less cited than are those of men, although the differences are not large. The gender differences in citation rates can be attributed to differences in productivity. There is a cumulative advantage effect of increasing publication output on citation rates. Since the women in our study publish significantly fewer publications than do men, they benefit less from this effect. The study also provides results on how publication and citation rates vary according to scientific position, age, and discipline.
    Type
    a
  3. Aksnes, D.W.: Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution (2006) 0.00 
    0.0014390396 = product of:
  0.0028780792 = sum of:
    0.0028780792 = product of:
      0.0057561584 = sum of:
        0.0057561584 = weight(_text_:a in 4925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0057561584 = score(doc=4925,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4925, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this study scientists were asked about their own publication history and their citation counts. The study shows that the citation counts of the publications correspond reasonably well with the authors' own assessments of scientific contribution. Generally, citations proved to have the highest accuracy in identifying either major or minor contributions. Nevertheless, according to these judgments, citations are not a reliable indicator of scientific contribution at the level of the individual article. In the construction of relative citation indicators, the average citation rate of the subfield appears to be slightly more appropriate as a reference standard than the journal citation rate. The study confirms that review articles are cited more frequently than other publication types. Compared to the significance authors attach to these articles they appear to be considerably "overcited." However, there were only marginal differences in the citation rates between empirical, methods, and theoretical contributions.
    Type
    a
  4. Piro, F.N.; Aksnes, D.W.; Roerstad, K.: ¬A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields : challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing (2013) 0.00 
    0.0013847164 = product of:
  0.0027694327 = sum of:
    0.0027694327 = product of:
      0.0055388655 = sum of:
        0.0055388655 = weight(_text_:a in 609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055388655 = score(doc=609,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 609, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=609)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    While many studies have compared research productivity across scientific fields, they have mostly focused on the "hard sciences," in many cases due to limited publication data for the "softer" disciplines; these studies have also typically been based on a small sample of researchers. In this study we use complete publication data for all researchers employed at Norwegian universities over a 4-year period, linked to biographic data for each researcher. Using this detailed and complete data set, we compare research productivity between five main scientific domains (and subfields within them), across academic positions, and in terms of age and gender. The study's key finding is that researchers from medicine, natural sciences, and technology are most productive when whole counts of publications are used, while researchers from the humanities and social sciences are most productive when article counts are fractionalized according to the total number of authors. The strong differences between these fields in publishing forms and patterns of coauthorship raise questions as to whether publication indicators can justifiably be used for comparison of productivity across scientific disciplines.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Themes