Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  • × author_ss:"Leydesdorff, L."
  1. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Barth, A.; Leydesdorff, L.: Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) (2014) 0.01 
    0.011293036 = product of:
  0.022586072 = sum of:
    0.022586072 = product of:
      0.045172144 = sum of:
        0.045172144 = weight(_text_:w in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045172144 = score(doc=1238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040219255 = queryNorm
            0.29472697 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  2. Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013) 0.01 
    0.009679745 = product of:
  0.01935949 = sum of:
    0.01935949 = product of:
      0.03871898 = sum of:
        0.03871898 = weight(_text_:w in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03871898 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040219255 = queryNorm
            0.2526231 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  3. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.01 
    0.009328886 = product of:
  0.018657772 = sum of:
    0.018657772 = product of:
      0.1306044 = sum of:
        0.1306044 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1306044 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1833521 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040219255 = queryNorm
            0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
  4. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.01 
    0.00817373 = product of:
  0.01634746 = sum of:
    0.01634746 = product of:
      0.03269492 = sum of:
        0.03269492 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03269492 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14084098 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040219255 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mingers, J.: Statistical significance and effect sizes of differences among research universities at the level of nations and worldwide based on the Leiden rankings (2019) 0.01 
    0.008066455 = product of:
  0.01613291 = sum of:
    0.01613291 = product of:
      0.03226582 = sum of:
        0.03226582 = weight(_text_:w in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03226582 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15326777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040219255 = queryNorm
            0.21051927 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Leiden Rankings can be used for grouping research universities by considering universities which are not statistically significantly different as homogeneous sets. The groups and intergroup relations can be analyzed and visualized using tools from network analysis. Using the so-called "excellence indicator" PPtop-10%-the proportion of the top-10% most-highly-cited papers assigned to a university-we pursue a classification using (a) overlapping stability intervals, (b) statistical-significance tests, and (c) effect sizes of differences among 902 universities in 54 countries; we focus on the UK, Germany, Brazil, and the USA as national examples. Although the groupings remain largely the same using different statistical significance levels or overlapping stability intervals, these classifications are uncorrelated with those based on effect sizes. Effect sizes for the differences between universities are small (w < .2). The more detailed analysis of universities at the country level suggests that distinctions beyond three or perhaps four groups of universities (high, middle, low) may not be meaningful. Given similar institutional incentives, isomorphism within each eco-system of universities should not be underestimated. Our results suggest that networks based on overlapping stability intervals can provide a first impression of the relevant groupings among universities. However, the clusters are not well-defined divisions between groups of universities.
  6. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.01 
    0.0068114423 = product of:
  0.013622885 = sum of:
    0.013622885 = product of:
      0.02724577 = sum of:
        0.02724577 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02724577 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14084098 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040219255 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
  7. Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? : a new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing (2011) 0.00 
    0.003957911 = product of:
  0.007915822 = sum of:
    0.007915822 = product of:
      0.05541075 = sum of:
        0.05541075 = weight(_text_:authors in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05541075 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1833521 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040219255 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The methods presented in this paper allow for a statistical analysis revealing centers of excellence around the world using programs that are freely available. Based on Web of Science data (a fee-based database), field-specific excellence can be identified in cities where highly cited papers were published more frequently than can be expected. Compared to the mapping approaches published hitherto, our approach is more analytically oriented by allowing the assessment of an observed number of excellent papers for a city against the expected number. Top performers in output are cities in which authors are located who publish a statistically significant higher number of highly cited papers than can be expected for these cities. As sample data for physics, chemistry, and psychology show, these cities do not necessarily have a high output of highly cited papers.
  8. Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015) 0.00 
    0.003298259 = product of:
  0.006596518 = sum of:
    0.006596518 = product of:
      0.046175625 = sum of:
        0.046175625 = weight(_text_:authors in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046175625 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1833521 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040219255 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2047, 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=2047)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US.

Authors