-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.01
0.006430729 = product of:
0.042871524 = sum of:
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.014290508 = weight(_text_:23 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014290508 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07217676 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- 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.
-
Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013)
0.00
0.0031342213 = product of:
0.031342212 = sum of:
0.011358538 = weight(_text_:und in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011358538 = score(doc=928,freq=6.0), product of:
0.044633795 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.019983673 = weight(_text_:der in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019983673 = score(doc=928,freq=18.0), product of:
0.044984195 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.44423765 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- Grundsätzlich können wir bei Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft zwischen einer 'qualitative' Form, der Bewertung einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit (z. B. eines Manuskripts oder Forschungsantrags) durch kompetente Peers, und einer 'quantitative' Form, der Bewertung von wissenschaftlicher Arbeit anhand bibliometrischer Indikatoren unterscheiden. Beide Formen der Bewertung sind nicht unumstritten. Die Kritiker des Peer Review sehen vor allem zwei Schwächen des Verfahrens: (1) Verschiedene Gutachter würden kaum in der Bewertung ein und derselben wissenschaftlichen Arbeit übereinstimmen. (2) Gutachterliche Empfehlungen würden systematische Urteilsverzerrungen aufweisen. Gegen die Verwendung von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für die Qualität einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit wird seit Jahren eine Vielzahl von Bedenken geäußert. Zitierhäufigkeiten seien keine 'objektiven' Messungen von wissenschaftlicher Qualität, sondern ein kritisierbares Messkonstrukt. So wird unter anderem kritisiert, dass wissenschaftliche Qualität ein komplexes Phänomen darstelle, das nicht auf einer eindimensionalen Skala (d. h. anhand von Zitierhäufigkeiten) gemessen werden könne. Es werden empirische Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Fairness des Peer Review Verfahrens sowie Forschungsergebnisse zur Güte von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für wissenschaftliche Qualität vorgestellt.
- Series
- Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.12
- Source
- Wissen - Wissenschaft - Organisation: Proceedings der 12. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Bonn, 19. bis 21. Oktober 2009. Hrsg.: H.P. Ohly
-
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)
0.00
0.0020602958 = product of:
0.020602956 = sum of:
0.016055528 = product of:
0.032111056 = sum of:
0.032111056 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032111056 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10819342 = queryWeight, product of:
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0045474293 = product of:
0.013642288 = sum of:
0.013642288 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013642288 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
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
9.633316E-4 = product of:
0.019266631 = sum of:
0.019266631 = product of:
0.038533263 = sum of:
0.038533263 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038533263 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10819342 = queryWeight, product of:
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- 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.
-
Bornmann, L.: On the function of university rankings (2014)
0.00
8.2596735E-4 = product of:
0.016519347 = sum of:
0.016519347 = product of:
0.033038694 = sum of:
0.033038694 = weight(_text_:29 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033038694 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 16:55:03
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.00
5.456915E-4 = product of:
0.01091383 = sum of:
0.01091383 = product of:
0.03274149 = sum of:
0.03274149 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03274149 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: Distributions instead of single numbers : percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers (2014)
0.00
4.818143E-4 = product of:
0.009636286 = sum of:
0.009636286 = product of:
0.019272571 = sum of:
0.019272571 = weight(_text_:29 in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019272571 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 15:58:21
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.00
3.6379436E-4 = product of:
0.007275887 = sum of:
0.007275887 = product of:
0.02182766 = sum of:
0.02182766 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02182766 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Bornmann, L.; Schier, H.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-D.: Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? : a study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes (2011)
0.00
3.441531E-4 = product of:
0.0068830615 = sum of:
0.0068830615 = product of:
0.013766123 = sum of:
0.013766123 = weight(_text_:29 in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013766123 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.070840135 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 18:29:40
-
Bornmann, L.: How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics : the statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers (2013)
0.00
2.7284576E-4 = product of:
0.005456915 = sum of:
0.005456915 = product of:
0.016370745 = sum of:
0.016370745 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016370745 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 656, 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=656)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:44:17
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.00
2.7284576E-4 = product of:
0.005456915 = sum of:
0.005456915 = product of:
0.016370745 = sum of:
0.016370745 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016370745 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07052079 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02013827 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
