Search (54 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × 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. Collins, H.; Bornmann, L.: On scientific misconduct (2014) 0.02 
    0.01769935 = product of:
  0.0353987 = sum of:
    0.0353987 = product of:
      0.053098045 = sum of:
        0.009410121 = weight(_text_:a in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009410121 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1247)
        0.043687925 = weight(_text_:h in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043687925 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.38429362 = fieldWeight in 1247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1247)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Mutz, R.; Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions : a multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex-ante and ex-post peer evaluation data from the Austrian science fund (2015) 0.01 
    0.007441449 = product of:
  0.014882898 = sum of:
    0.014882898 = product of:
      0.022324346 = sum of:
        0.0067215143 = weight(_text_:a in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067215143 = score(doc=2270,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2270, 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=2270)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    It is essential for research funding organizations to ensure both the validity and fairness of the grant approval procedure. The ex-ante peer evaluation (EXANTE) of N?=?8,496 grant applications submitted to the Austrian Science Fund from 1999 to 2009 was statistically analyzed. For 1,689 funded research projects an ex-post peer evaluation (EXPOST) was also available; for the rest of the grant applications a multilevel missing data imputation approach was used to consider verification bias for the first time in peer-review research. Without imputation, the predictive validity of EXANTE was low (r?=?.26) but underestimated due to verification bias, and with imputation it was r?=?.49. That is, the decision-making procedure is capable of selecting the best research proposals for funding. In the EXANTE there were several potential biases (e.g., gender). With respect to the EXPOST there was only one real bias (discipline-specific and year-specific differential prediction). The novelty of this contribution is, first, the combining of theoretical concepts of validity and fairness with a missing data imputation approach to correct for verification bias and, second, multilevel modeling to test peer review-based funding decisions for both validity and fairness in terms of potential and real biases.
    Type
    a
  11. 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
  12. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multilevel-statistical reformulation of citation-based university rankings : the Leiden ranking 2011/2012 (2013) 0.01 
    0.0067852205 = product of:
  0.013570441 = sum of:
    0.013570441 = product of:
      0.02035566 = sum of:
        0.0047528287 = weight(_text_:a in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047528287 = score(doc=1007,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 1007, 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=1007)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Since the 1990s, with the heightened competition and the strong growth of the international higher education market, an increasing number of rankings have been created that measure the scientific performance of an institution based on data. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 (LR) was published early in 2012. Starting from Goldstein and Spiegelhalter's (1996) recommendations for conducting quantitative comparisons among institutions, in this study we undertook a reformulation of the LR by means of multilevel regression models. First, with our models we replicated the ranking results; second, the reanalysis of the LR data showed that only 5% of the PPtop10% total variation is attributable to differences between universities. Beyond that, about 80% of the variation between universities can be explained by differences among countries. If covariates are included in the model the differences among most of the universities become meaningless. Our findings have implications for conducting university rankings in general and for the LR in particular. For example, with Goldstein-adjusted confidence intervals, it is possible to interpret the significance of differences among universities meaningfully: Rank differences among universities should be interpreted as meaningful only if their confidence intervals do not overlap.
    Type
    a
  13. 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
  14. Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Statistical tests and research assessments : a comment on Schneider (2012) (2013) 0.00 
    0.0019011315 = product of:
  0.003802263 = sum of:
    0.003802263 = product of:
      0.011406789 = sum of:
        0.011406789 = weight(_text_:a in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011406789 = score(doc=752,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 752, 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=752)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  15. 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
  16. Dobrota, M.; Bulajic, M.; Bornmann, L.; Jeremic, V.: ¬A new approach to the QS university ranking using the composite I-distance indicator : uncertainty and sensitivity 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 2500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011406789 = score(doc=2500,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2500, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2500)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Some major concerns of universities are to provide quality in higher education and enhance global competitiveness, thus ensuring a high global rank and an excellent performance evaluation. This article examines the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Ranking methodology, pointing to a drawback of using subjective, possibly biased, weightings to build a composite indicator (QS scores). We propose an alternative approach to creating QS scores, which is referred to as the composite I-distance indicator (CIDI) methodology. The main contribution is the proposal of a composite indicator weights correction based on the CIDI methodology. It leads to the improved stability and reduced uncertainty of the QS ranking system. The CIDI methodology is also applicable to other university rankings by proposing a specific statistical approach to creating a composite indicator.
    Type
    a
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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

Authors

Languages

  • e 53
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes