-
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
0.002940995 = product of:
0.007352487 = sum of:
0.0034055763 = weight(_text_:a in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0034055763 = score(doc=3539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = 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)
0.003946911 = product of:
0.007893822 = sum of:
0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007893822 = score(doc=3539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3539, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3539)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.1036-1047
- Type
- a
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.D.: What do citation counts measure? : a review of studies on citing behavior (2008)
0.00
0.0018020617 = product of:
0.009010308 = sum of:
0.009010308 = weight(_text_:a in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009010308 = score(doc=1729,freq=14.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a narrative review of studies on the citing behavior of scientists, covering mainly research published in the last 15 years. Based on the results of these studies, the paper seeks to answer the question of the extent to which scientists are motivated to cite a publication not only to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of scientific peers, but also for other, possibly non-scientific, reasons. Design/methodology/approach - The review covers research published from the early 1960s up to mid-2005 (approximately 30 studies on citing behavior-reporting results in about 40 publications). Findings - The general tendency of the results of the empirical studies makes it clear that citing behavior is not motivated solely by the wish to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of colleague scientists, since the individual studies reveal also other, in part non-scientific, factors that play a part in the decision to cite. However, the results of the studies must also be deemed scarcely reliable: the studies vary widely in design, and their results can hardly be replicated. Many of the studies have methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, there is evidence that the different motivations of citers are "not so different or 'randomly given' to such an extent that the phenomenon of citation would lose its role as a reliable measure of impact". Originality/value - Given the increasing importance of evaluative bibliometrics in the world of scholarship, the question "What do citation counts measure?" is a particularly relevant and topical issue.
- Type
- a
-
Bornmann, L.; Ye, A.; Ye, F.: Identifying landmark publications in the long run using field-normalized citation data (2018)
0.00
0.0015230201 = product of:
0.0076151006 = sum of:
0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 4196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0076151006 = score(doc=4196,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4196, 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=4196)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this paper is to propose an approach for identifying landmark papers in the long run. These publications reach a very high level of citation impact and are able to remain on this level across many citing years. In recent years, several studies have been published which deal with the citation history of publications and try to identify landmark publications. Design/methodology/approach In contrast to other studies published hitherto, this study is based on a broad data set with papers published between 1980 and 1990 for identifying the landmark papers. The authors analyzed the citation histories of about five million papers across 25 years. Findings The results of this study reveal that 1,013 papers (less than 0.02 percent) are "outstandingly cited" in the long run. The cluster analyses of the papers show that they received the high impact level very soon after publication and remained on this level over decades. Only a slight impact decline is visible over the years. Originality/value For practical reasons, approaches for identifying landmark papers should be as simple as possible. The approach proposed in this study is based on standard methods in bibliometrics.
- Type
- a
-
Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013)
0.00
8.173384E-4 = product of:
0.004086692 = sum of:
0.004086692 = weight(_text_:a in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004086692 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 928, 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=928)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Type
- a
