Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024133656 = sum of:
  0.015122154 = product of:
    0.060488615 = sum of:
      0.060488615 = weight(_text_:authors in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060488615 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24018547 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3998, 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=3998)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.009011503 = product of:
    0.018023007 = sum of:
      0.018023007 = weight(_text_:m in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018023007 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052685954 = queryNorm
          0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
    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.

0.0045057517 = product of:
  0.009011503 = sum of:
    0.009011503 = product of:
      0.018023007 = sum of:
        0.018023007 = weight(_text_:m in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018023007 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13110629 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052685954 = queryNorm
            0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientists may seek to report a single definable body of research in more than one publication, that is, in repeated reports of the same work or in fractional reports, in order to disseminate their research as widely as possible in the scientific community. Up to now, however, it has not been examined whether this strategy of "multiple publication" in fact leads to greater reception of the research. In the present study, we investigate the influence of number of articles reporting the results of a single study on reception in the scientific community (total citation counts of an article on a single study). Our data set consists of 96 applicants for a research fellowship from the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF), an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. The applicants reported to us all articles that they had published within the framework of their doctoral research projects. On this single project, the applicants had published from 1 to 16 articles (M = 4; Mdn = 3). The results of a regression model with an interaction term show that the practice of multiple publication of research study results does in fact lead to greater reception of the research (higher total citation counts) in the scientific community. However, reception is dependent upon length of article: the longer the article, the more total citation counts increase with the number of articles. Thus, it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports.