Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.03 
    0.02748698 = product of:
  0.05497396 = sum of:
    0.05497396 = product of:
      0.08246094 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
        0.07439512 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07439512 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
    Type
    a
  2. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.02 
    0.020117057 = product of:
  0.040234115 = sum of:
    0.040234115 = product of:
      0.06035117 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=1431,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
        0.049596746 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049596746 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Properties of a percentile-based rating scale needed in bibliometrics are formulated. Based on these properties, P100 was recently introduced as a new citation-rank approach (Bornmann, Leydesdorff, & Wang, 2013). In this paper, we conceptualize P100 and propose an improvement which we call P100'. Advantages and disadvantages of citation-rank indicators are noted.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
    Type
    a
  3. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.02 
    0.01540514 = product of:
  0.03081028 = sum of:
    0.03081028 = product of:
      0.04621542 = sum of:
        0.009017859 = weight(_text_:a in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009017859 = score(doc=4681,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
        0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03719756 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
    Type
    a
  4. 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) 0.01 
    0.01374349 = product of:
  0.02748698 = sum of:
    0.02748698 = product of:
      0.04123047 = sum of:
        0.004032909 = weight(_text_:a in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004032909 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 656, 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=656)
        0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03719756 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:44:17
    Type
    a
  5. 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 
    0.012837617 = product of:
  0.025675233 = sum of:
    0.025675233 = product of:
      0.03851285 = sum of:
        0.007514882 = weight(_text_:a in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007514882 = score(doc=4186,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
        0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030997967 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
    Type
    a
  6. 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) 0.01 
    0.009860206 = product of:
  0.019720413 = sum of:
    0.019720413 = product of:
      0.02958062 = sum of:
        0.007514882 = weight(_text_:a in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007514882 = score(doc=4132,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4132, 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=4132)
        0.022065736 = weight(_text_:h in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022065736 = score(doc=4132,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1940976 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In a comprehensive research project, we investigated the predictive validity of selection decisions and reviewers' ratings at the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). ACP is a high-impact journal publishing papers on the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes. Scientific journals have to deal with the following question concerning the predictive validity: Are in fact the "best" scientific works selected from the manuscripts submitted? In this study we examined whether selecting the "best" manuscripts means selecting papers that after publication show top citation performance as compared to other papers in this research area. First, we appraised the citation impact of later published manuscripts based on the percentile citedness rank classes of the population distribution (scaling in a specific subfield). Second, we analyzed the association between the decisions (n = 677 accepted or rejected, but published elsewhere manuscripts) or ratings (reviewers' ratings for n = 315 manuscripts), respectively, and the citation impact classes of the manuscripts. The results confirm the predictive validity of the ACP peer review system.
    Type
    a
  7. Bornmann, L.; Thor, A.; Marx, W.; Schier, H.: ¬The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences : an exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute (2016) 0.01 
    0.008164853 = product of:
  0.016329706 = sum of:
    0.016329706 = product of:
      0.024494559 = sum of:
        0.008891728 = weight(_text_:a in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008891728 = score(doc=3160,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3160, 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=3160)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=3160,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the humanities and social sciences, bibliometric methods for the assessment of research performance are (so far) less common. This study uses a concrete example in an attempt to evaluate a research institute from the area of social sciences and humanities with the help of data from Google Scholar (GS). In order to use GS for a bibliometric study, we developed procedures for the normalization of citation impact, building on the procedures of classical bibliometrics. In order to test the convergent validity of the normalized citation impact scores, we calculated normalized scores for a subset of the publications based on data from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. Even if scores calculated with the help of GS and the WoS/Scopus are not identical for the different publication types (considered here), they are so similar that they result in the same assessment of the institute investigated in this study: For example, the institute's papers whose journals are covered in the WoS are cited at about an average rate (compared with the other papers in the journals).
    Type
    a
  8. Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013) 0.01 
    0.007585435 = product of:
  0.01517087 = sum of:
    0.01517087 = product of:
      0.022756305 = sum of:
        0.004032909 = weight(_text_:a in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.004032909 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
        0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018723397 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Type
    a
  9. 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) 0.01 
    0.0071412786 = product of:
  0.014282557 = sum of:
    0.014282557 = product of:
      0.021423835 = sum of:
        0.0058210026 = weight(_text_:a in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0058210026 = score(doc=3998,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = 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)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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
  10. Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: ¬The wisdom of citing scientists (2014) 0.00 
    0.0019208328 = product of:
  0.0038416656 = sum of:
    0.0038416656 = product of:
      0.011524997 = sum of:
        0.011524997 = weight(_text_:a in 1293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011524997 = score(doc=1293,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1293, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1293)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This Brief Communication discusses the benefits of citation analysis in research evaluation based on Galton's "Wisdom of Crowds" (1907). Citations are based on the assessment of many which is why they can be considered to have some credibility. However, we show that citations are incomplete assessments and that one cannot assume that a high number of citations correlates with a high level of usefulness. Only when one knows that a rarely cited paper has been widely read is it possible to say-strictly speaking-that it was obviously of little use for further research. Using a comparison with "like" data, we try to determine that cited reference analysis allows for a more meaningful analysis of bibliometric data than times-cited analysis.
    Type
    a
  11. Bornmann, L.: Is there currently a scientific revolution in Scientometrics? (2014) 0.00 
    0.0019011315 = product of:
  0.003802263 = sum of:
    0.003802263 = product of:
      0.011406789 = sum of:
        0.011406789 = weight(_text_:a in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011406789 = score(doc=1206,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  12. Bornmann, L.: What do altmetrics counts mean? : a plea for content analyses (2016) 0.00 
    0.0019011315 = product of:
  0.003802263 = sum of:
    0.003802263 = product of:
      0.011406789 = sum of:
        0.011406789 = weight(_text_:a in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011406789 = score(doc=2858,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  13. Bornmann, L.; Bauer, J.: Which of the world's institutions employ the most highly cited researchers : an analysis of the data from highlycited.com (2015) 0.00 
    0.0017924039 = product of:
  0.0035848077 = sum of:
    0.0035848077 = product of:
      0.010754423 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 1556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=1556,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1556, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1556)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In 2014, Thomson Reuters published a list of the most highly cited researchers worldwide (highlycited.com). Because the data are freely available for downloading and include the names of the researchers' institutions, we produced a ranking of the institutions on the basis of the number of highly cited researchers per institution. This ranking is intended to be a helpful amendment of other available institutional rankings.
    Type
    a
  14. Bornmann, L.; Bauer, J.: Which of the world's institutions employ the most highly cited researchers : an analysis of the data from highlycited.com (2015) 0.00 
    0.0017924039 = product of:
  0.0035848077 = sum of:
    0.0035848077 = product of:
      0.010754423 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 2223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=2223,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2223, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2223)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In 2014, Thomson Reuters published a list of the most highly cited researchers worldwide (highlycited.com). Because the data are freely available for downloading and include the names of the researchers' institutions, we produced a ranking of the institutions on the basis of the number of highly cited researchers per institution. This ranking is intended to be a helpful amendment of other available institutional rankings.
    Type
    a
  15. 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 
    0.0017783458 = product of:
  0.0035566916 = sum of:
    0.0035566916 = product of:
      0.010670074 = sum of:
        0.010670074 = weight(_text_:a in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010670074 = score(doc=4767,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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.
    Type
    a
  16. Bornmann, L.: How much does the expected number of citations for a publication change if it contains the address of a specific scientific institute? : a new approach for the analysis of citation data on the institutional level based on regression models (2016) 0.00 
    0.0015842763 = product of:
  0.0031685526 = sum of:
    0.0031685526 = product of:
      0.0095056575 = sum of:
        0.0095056575 = weight(_text_:a in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0095056575 = score(doc=3095,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Citation data for institutes are generally provided as numbers of citations or as relative citation rates (as, for example, in the Leiden Ranking). These numbers can then be compared between the institutes. This study aims to present a new approach for the evaluation of citation data at the institutional level, based on regression models. As example data, the study includes all articles and reviews from the Web of Science for the publication year 2003 (n?=?886,416 papers). The study is based on an in-house database of the Max Planck Society. The study investigates how much the expected number of citations for a publication changes if it contains the address of an institute. The calculation of the expected values allows, on the one hand, investigating how the citation impact of the papers of an institute appears in comparison with the total of all papers. On the other hand, the expected values for several institutes can be compared with one another or with a set of randomly selected publications. Besides the institutes, the regression models include factors which can be assumed to have a general influence on citation counts (e.g., the number of authors).
    Type
    a
  17. Bornmann, L.: How well does a university perform in comparison with its peers? : The use of odds, and odds ratios, for the comparison of institutional citation impact using the Leiden Rankings (2015) 0.00 
    0.0015683535 = product of:
  0.003136707 = sum of:
    0.003136707 = product of:
      0.009410121 = sum of:
        0.009410121 = weight(_text_:a in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009410121 = score(doc=2340,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2340, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2340)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study presents the calculation of odds, and odds ratios, for the comparison of the citation impact of universities in the Leiden Ranking. Odds and odds ratios can be used to measure the performance difference between a selected university and competing institutions, or the average of selected competitors, in a relatively simple but clear way.
    Type
    a
  18. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Barth, A.; Leydesdorff, L.: Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) (2014) 0.00 
    0.0013582341 = product of:
  0.0027164682 = sum of:
    0.0027164682 = product of:
      0.008149404 = sum of:
        0.008149404 = weight(_text_:a in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008149404 = score(doc=1238,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We introduce the quantitative method named "Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy" (RPYS). With this method one can determine the historical roots of research fields and quantify their impact on current research. RPYS is based on the analysis of the frequency with which references are cited in the publications of a specific research field in terms of the publication years of these cited references. The origins show up in the form of more or less pronounced peaks mostly caused by individual publications that are cited particularly frequently. In this study, we use research on graphene and on solar cells to illustrate how RPYS functions, and what results it can deliver.
    Type
    a
  19. Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.: Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) : an empirical attempt to study a new field-normalized bibliometric indicator (2017) 0.00 
    0.0013582341 = product of:
  0.0027164682 = sum of:
    0.0027164682 = product of:
      0.008149404 = sum of:
        0.008149404 = weight(_text_:a in 3541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008149404 = score(doc=3541,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3541, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3541)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Hutchins, Yuan, Anderson, and Santangelo (2015) proposed the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) as a new field-normalized impact indicator. This study investigates the RCR by correlating it on the level of single publications with established field-normalized indicators and assessments of the publications by peers. We find that the RCR correlates highly with established field-normalized indicators, but the correlation between RCR and peer assessments is only low to medium.
    Type
    a
  20. Bornmann, L.; Moya Anegón, F. de; Mutz, R.: Do universities or research institutions with a specific subject profile have an advantage or a disadvantage in institutional rankings? (2013) 0.00 
    0.001344303 = product of:
  0.002688606 = sum of:
    0.002688606 = product of:
      0.008065818 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=1109,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using data compiled for the SCImago Institutions Ranking, we look at whether the subject area type an institution (university or research-focused institution) belongs to (in terms of the fields researched) has an influence on its ranking position. We used latent class analysis to categorize institutions based on their publications in certain subject areas. Even though this categorization does not relate directly to scientific performance, our results show that it exercises an important influence on the outcome of a performance measurement: Certain subject area types of institutions have an advantage in the ranking positions when compared with others. This advantage manifests itself not only when performance is measured with an indicator that is not field-normalized but also for indicators that are field-normalized.
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 37
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes