-
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
0.001150207 = product of:
0.011502069 = sum of:
0.0038187557 = weight(_text_:in in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0038187557 = score(doc=3539,freq=6.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3539, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3539)
0.006274772 = product of:
0.018824315 = sum of:
0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018824315 = score(doc=3539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 3539, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3539)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0014085418 = score(doc=3539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3539, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3539)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- In recent years, the relationship of collaboration among scientists and the citation impact of papers have been frequently investigated. Most of the studies show that the two variables are closely related: An increasing collaboration activity (measured in terms of number of authors, number of affiliations, and number of countries) is associated with an increased citation impact. However, it is not clear whether the increased citation impact is based on the higher quality of papers that profit from more than one scientist giving expert input or other (citation-specific) factors. Thus, the current study addresses this question by using two comprehensive data sets with publications (in the biomedical area) including quality assessments by experts (F1000Prime member scores) and citation data for the publications. The study is based on more than 15,000 papers. Robust regression models are used to investigate the relationship between number of authors, number of affiliations, and number of countries, respectively, and citation impact-controlling for the papers' quality (measured by F1000Prime expert ratings). The results point out that the effect of collaboration activities on impact is largely independent of the papers' quality. The citation advantage is apparently not quality related; citation-specific factors (e.g., self-citations) seem to be important here.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.1036-1047
-
Bornmann, L.: Nature's top 100 revisited (2015)
0.00
0.0011022335 = product of:
0.016533501 = sum of:
0.012549544 = product of:
0.03764863 = sum of:
0.03764863 = weight(_text_:l in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03764863 = score(doc=2351,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.4391412 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.003983958 = weight(_text_:s in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003983958 = score(doc=2351,freq=4.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.16988087 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008)
0.00
9.107801E-4 = product of:
0.009107801 = sum of:
0.0024944006 = weight(_text_:in in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0024944006 = score(doc=2381,freq=4.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.08501591 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.0050198175 = product of:
0.015059452 = sum of:
0.015059452 = weight(_text_:l in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015059452 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.17565648 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0015935833 = weight(_text_:s in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0015935833 = score(doc=2381,freq=4.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.06795235 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.: Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) : an empirical attempt to study a new field-normalized bibliometric indicator (2017)
0.00
7.171093E-4 = product of:
0.010756639 = sum of:
0.008784681 = product of:
0.026354041 = sum of:
0.026354041 = weight(_text_:l in 3541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026354041 = score(doc=3541,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 3541, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3541)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 3541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0019719584 = score(doc=3541,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3541, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3541)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.1064-1067
