Search (60 results, page 3 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. 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) 0.00 
    0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=5225,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, 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.
    Type
    a
  2. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Opthof, T.: Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time : principles for comparing sets of documents (2011) 0.00 
    0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=4485,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4485, 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=4485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We submit newly developed citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks. Citation distributions are-as a rule-highly skewed and should not be arithmetically averaged. With percentile ranks, the citation score of each paper is rated in terms of its percentile in the citation distribution. The percentile ranks approach allows for the formulation of a more abstract indicator scheme that can be used to organize and/or schematize different impact indicators according to three degrees of freedom: the selection of the reference sets, the evaluation criteria, and the choice of whether or not to define the publication sets as independent. Bibliometric data of seven principal investigators (PIs) of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam are used as an exemplary dataset. We demonstrate that the proposed family indicators [R(6), R(100), R(6, k), R(100, k)] are an improvement on averages-based indicators because one can account for the shape of the distributions of citations over papers.
    Type
    a
  3. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps (2012) 0.00 
    0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=288,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 288, 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=288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A technique is developed using patent information available online (at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) for the generation of Google Maps. The overlays indicate both the quantity and the quality of patents at the city level. This information is relevant for research questions in technology analysis, innovation studies, and evolutionary economics, as well as economic geography. The resulting maps can also be relevant for technological innovation policies and research and development management, because the U.S. market can be considered the leading market for patenting and patent competition. In addition to the maps, the routines provide quantitative data about the patents for statistical analysis. The cities on the map are colored according to the results of significance tests. The overlays are explored for the Netherlands as a "national system of innovations" and further elaborated in two cases of emerging technologies: ribonucleic acid interference (RNAi) and nanotechnology.
    Type
    a
  4. 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) 0.00 
    0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=1108,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1108, 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=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.
    Type
    a
  5. Bornmann, L.: Complex tasks and simple solutions : the use of heuristics in the evaluation of research (2015) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 8911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=8911,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 8911, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8911)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  6. Leydesdorff, L.; Zhou, P.; Bornmann, L.: How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? : An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts (2013) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=532,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 532, 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=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.
    Type
    a
  7. Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=2047,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2047, 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=2047)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.
    Type
    a
  8. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: Growth rates of modern science : a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=2261,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2261, 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=2261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Many studies (in information science) have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we reexamine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (a) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (b) analyze the data across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with an advanced statistical technique-segmented regression analysis-which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (a) the number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (b) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three essential growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars, and 8 to 9% to 2010.
    Type
    a
  9. Mutz, R.; Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions : a multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex-ante and ex-post peer evaluation data from the Austrian science fund (2015) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=2270,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2270, 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=2270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    It is essential for research funding organizations to ensure both the validity and fairness of the grant approval procedure. The ex-ante peer evaluation (EXANTE) of N?=?8,496 grant applications submitted to the Austrian Science Fund from 1999 to 2009 was statistically analyzed. For 1,689 funded research projects an ex-post peer evaluation (EXPOST) was also available; for the rest of the grant applications a multilevel missing data imputation approach was used to consider verification bias for the first time in peer-review research. Without imputation, the predictive validity of EXANTE was low (r?=?.26) but underestimated due to verification bias, and with imputation it was r?=?.49. That is, the decision-making procedure is capable of selecting the best research proposals for funding. In the EXANTE there were several potential biases (e.g., gender). With respect to the EXPOST there was only one real bias (discipline-specific and year-specific differential prediction). The novelty of this contribution is, first, the combining of theoretical concepts of validity and fairness with a missing data imputation approach to correct for verification bias and, second, multilevel modeling to test peer review-based funding decisions for both validity and fairness in terms of potential and real biases.
    Type
    a
  10. Bornmann, L.: Nature's top 100 revisited (2015) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=2351,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  11. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3231,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3231, 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=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.
    Type
    a
  12. Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: Distributions instead of single numbers : percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers (2014) 0.00 
    0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=1190,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Citations measure an aspect of scientific quality: the impact of publications (A.F.J. van Raan, 1996). Percentiles normalize the impact of papers with respect to their publication year and field without using the arithmetic average. They are suitable for visualizing the performance of a single scientist. Beam plots make it possible to present the distributions of percentiles in the different publication years combined with the medians from these percentiles within each year and across all years.
    Type
    a
  13. Egghe, L.; Bornmann, L.: Fallout and miss in journal peer review (2013) 0.00 
    0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=1759,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1759, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The authors exploit the analogy between journal peer review and information retrieval in order to quantify some imperfections of journal peer review. Design/methodology/approach - The authors define fallout rate and missing rate in order to describe quantitatively the weak papers that were accepted and the strong papers that were missed, respectively. To assess the quality of manuscripts the authors use bibliometric measures. Findings - Fallout rate and missing rate are put in relation with the hitting rate and success rate. Conclusions are drawn on what fraction of weak papers will be accepted in order to have a certain fraction of strong accepted papers. Originality/value - The paper illustrates that these curves are new in peer review research when interpreted in the information retrieval terminology.
    Type
    a
  14. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=3998,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
    Type
    a
  15. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors : an alternative research design with policy implications (2011) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=4919,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.
    Type
    a
  16. Bornmann, L.; Moya Anegón, F.de: What proportion of excellent papers makes an institution one of the best worldwide? : Specifying thresholds for the interpretation of the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking and the Leiden Ranking (2014) 0.00 
    0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 1235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=1235,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1235, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1235)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    University rankings generally present users with the problem of placing the results given for an institution in context. Only a comparison with the performance of all other institutions makes it possible to say exactly where an institution stands. In order to interpret the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking (based on Scopus data) and the Leiden Ranking (based on Web of Science data), in this study we offer thresholds with which it is possible to assess whether an institution belongs to the top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, top 25%, or top 50% of institutions in the world. The thresholds are based on the excellence rate or PPtop 10%. Both indicators measure the proportion of an institution's publications which belong to the 10% most frequently cited publications and are the most important indicators for measuring institutional impact. For example, while an institution must achieve a value of 24.63% in the Leiden Ranking 2013 to be considered one of the top 1% of institutions worldwide, the SCImago Institutions Ranking requires 30.2%.
    Type
    a
  17. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multilevel-statistical reformulation of citation-based university rankings : the Leiden ranking 2011/2012 (2013) 0.00 
    0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=1007,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Since the 1990s, with the heightened competition and the strong growth of the international higher education market, an increasing number of rankings have been created that measure the scientific performance of an institution based on data. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 (LR) was published early in 2012. Starting from Goldstein and Spiegelhalter's (1996) recommendations for conducting quantitative comparisons among institutions, in this study we undertook a reformulation of the LR by means of multilevel regression models. First, with our models we replicated the ranking results; second, the reanalysis of the LR data showed that only 5% of the PPtop10% total variation is attributable to differences between universities. Beyond that, about 80% of the variation between universities can be explained by differences among countries. If covariates are included in the model the differences among most of the universities become meaningless. Our findings have implications for conducting university rankings in general and for the LR in particular. For example, with Goldstein-adjusted confidence intervals, it is possible to interpret the significance of differences among universities meaningfully: Rank differences among universities should be interpreted as meaningful only if their confidence intervals do not overlap.
    Type
    a
  18. Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.: ¬An empirical look at the nature index (2017) 0.00 
    0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=3432,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3432, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In November 2014, the Nature Index (NI) was introduced (see http://www.natureindex.com) by the Nature Publishing Group (NPG). The NI comprises the primary research articles published in the past 12 months in a selection of reputable journals. Starting from two short comments on the NI (Haunschild & Bornmann, 2015a, 2015b), we undertake an empirical analysis of the NI using comprehensive country data. We investigate whether the huge efforts of computing the NI are justified and whether the size-dependent NI indicators should be complemented by size-independent variants. The analysis uses data from the Max Planck Digital Library in-house database (which is based on Web of Science data) and from the NPG. In the first step of the analysis, we correlate the NI with other metrics that are simpler to generate than the NI. The resulting large correlation coefficients point out that the NI produces similar results as simpler solutions. In the second step of the analysis, relative and size-independent variants of the NI are generated that should be additionally presented by the NPG. The size-dependent NI indicators favor large countries (or institutions) and the top-performing small countries (or institutions) do not come into the picture.
    Type
    a
  19. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016) 0.00 
    0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  20. Bornmann, L.: Is collaboration among scientists related to the citation impact of papers because their quality increases with collaboration? : an analysis based on data from F1000Prime and normalized citation scores (2017) 0.00 
    8.4567186E-4 = product of:
  0.0016913437 = sum of:
    0.0016913437 = product of:
      0.0033826875 = sum of:
        0.0033826875 = weight(_text_:a in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0033826875 = score(doc=3539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3539, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Themes