Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Aksnes, D.W."
  1. Aksnes, D.W.: Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution (2006) 0.03 
    0.027922278 = sum of:
  0.025843486 = product of:
    0.103373945 = sum of:
      0.103373945 = weight(_text_:authors in 4925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.103373945 = score(doc=4925,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 4925, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4925)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0020787928 = product of:
    0.0041575856 = sum of:
      0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 4925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0041575856 = score(doc=4925,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4925, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4925)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.2, S.169-185
  2. Piro, F.N.; Aksnes, D.W.; Roerstad, K.: ¬A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields : challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing (2013) 0.02 
    0.016960748 = sum of:
  0.01522842 = product of:
    0.06091368 = sum of:
      0.06091368 = weight(_text_:authors in 609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06091368 = score(doc=609,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 609, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=609)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0017323275 = product of:
    0.003464655 = sum of:
      0.003464655 = weight(_text_:s in 609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.003464655 = score(doc=609,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053056188 = queryNorm
          0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 609, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=609)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.307-320
  3. Aksnes, D.W.; Rorstad, K.; Piro, F.; Sivertsen, G.: Are female researchers less cited? : a large-scale study of Norwegian scientists (2011) 0.00 
    0.0010393964 = product of:
  0.0020787928 = sum of:
    0.0020787928 = product of:
      0.0041575856 = sum of:
        0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0041575856 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053056188 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.4, S.628-636
  4. Aksnes, D.W.: When different persons have an identical author name : how frequent are homonyms? (2008) 0.00 
    0.0010393964 = product of:
  0.0020787928 = sum of:
    0.0020787928 = product of:
      0.0041575856 = sum of:
        0.0041575856 = weight(_text_:s in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0041575856 = score(doc=1617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053056188 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.5, S.838-841

Authors

Years

Themes