Search (43 results, page 2 of 3)

0.0022314154 = product of:
  0.020082738 = sum of:
    0.020082738 = weight(_text_:of in 2328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020082738 = score(doc=2328,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 2328, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2328)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a postpublication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the interrater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on about 100,000 papers with recommendations from faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies that have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also associated with higher performing papers.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2415-2426

0.0022002053 = product of:
  0.019801848 = sum of:
    0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 1235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019801848 = score(doc=1235,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 1235, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1235)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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%.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.732-736

0.0021780923 = product of:
  0.01960283 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=2340,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2340, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2340)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2711-2713

0.0021201707 = product of:
  0.019081537 = sum of:
    0.019081537 = weight(_text_:of in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019081537 = score(doc=532,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.96-107

0.0021201707 = product of:
  0.019081537 = sum of:
    0.019081537 = weight(_text_:of in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019081537 = score(doc=2047,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1507-1513

0.0021201707 = product of:
  0.019081537 = sum of:
    0.019081537 = weight(_text_:of in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019081537 = score(doc=3160,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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).

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2778-2789

0.0021169065 = product of:
  0.019052157 = sum of:
    0.019052157 = weight(_text_:of in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019052157 = score(doc=2779,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.

Aid

Web of Science

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714

0.0020369943 = product of:
  0.018332949 = sum of:
    0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018332949 = score(doc=2954,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In a recently published PNAS paper, Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008) propose the relative indicator cf as an unbiased indicator for citation performance across disciplines (fields, subject areas). To calculate cf, the citation rate for a single paper is divided by the average number of citations for all papers in the discipline in which the single paper has been categorized. cf values are said to lead to a universality of discipline-specific citation distributions. Using a comprehensive dataset of an evaluation study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), we tested the advantage of using this indicator in practical application at the micro level, as compared with (1) simple citation rates, and (2) z-scores, which have been used in psychological testing for many years for normalization of test scores. To calculate z-scores, the mean number of citations of the papers within a discipline is subtracted from the citation rate of a single paper, and the difference is then divided by the citations' standard deviation for a discipline. Our results indicate that z-scores are better suited than cf values to produce universality of discipline-specific citation distributions.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1664-1670

0.0019958385 = product of:
  0.017962547 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=1188,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.428-429

0.0019958385 = product of:
  0.017962547 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=2349,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2715-2716

0.0018669361 = product of:
  0.016802425 = sum of:
    0.016802425 = weight(_text_:of in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802425 = score(doc=4767,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.1954-1962

0.0018595128 = product of:
  0.016735615 = sum of:
    0.016735615 = weight(_text_:of in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016735615 = score(doc=5225,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.5, S.509-525

0.0017640886 = product of:
  0.015876798 = sum of:
    0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 2160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015876798 = score(doc=2160,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 2160, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2160)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In recent years, a number of studies have introduced methods for identifying papers with delayed recognition (so called "sleeping beauties," SBs) or have presented single publications as cases of SBs. Most recently, Ke, Ferrara, Radicchi, and Flammini (2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112(24), 7426-7431) proposed the so called "beauty coefficient" (denoted as B) to quantify how much a given paper can be considered as a paper with delayed recognition. In this study, the new term smart girl (SG) is suggested to differentiate instant credit or "flashes in the pan" from SBs. Although SG and SB are qualitatively defined, the dynamic citation angle ß is introduced in this study as a simple way for identifying SGs and SBs quantitatively - complementing the beauty coefficient B. The citation angles for all articles from 1980 (n?=?166,870) in natural sciences are calculated for identifying SGs and SBs and their extent. We reveal that about 3% of the articles are typical SGs and about 0.1% typical SBs. The potential advantages of the citation angle approach are explained.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.3, S.359-367

0.0017640886 = product of:
  0.015876798 = sum of:
    0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015876798 = score(doc=3231,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100

0.0016631988 = product of:
  0.014968789 = sum of:
    0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968789 = score(doc=2351,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Bezug: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2714. Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23554/abstract.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2166

0.0016631988 = product of:
  0.014968789 = sum of:
    0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968789 = score(doc=3432,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 3432, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3432)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.653-659

0.0015602189 = product of:
  0.01404197 = sum of:
    0.01404197 = weight(_text_:of in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01404197 = score(doc=2381,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.

Content

Vgl. auch: Erratum Re: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Agewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(2008) no.12, S.2037-2038.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.11, S.1841-1852

0.0015557801 = product of:
  0.0140020205 = sum of:
    0.0140020205 = weight(_text_:of in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140020205 = score(doc=4132,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.61-71

0.0015557801 = product of:
  0.0140020205 = sum of:
    0.0140020205 = weight(_text_:of in 4196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140020205 = score(doc=4196,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 4196, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4196)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of documentation. 74(2018) no.2, S.278-288

0.001425896 = product of:
  0.0128330635 = sum of:
    0.0128330635 = weight(_text_:of in 3541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128330635 = score(doc=3541,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 3541, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3541)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.1064-1067