-
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
6.893079E-4 = product of:
0.007582387 = sum of:
0.00364095 = weight(_text_:in in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00364095 = score(doc=3539,freq=6.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = 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)
0.0039414368 = product of:
0.0078828735 = sum of:
0.0078828735 = weight(_text_:science in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0078828735 = score(doc=3539,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 3539, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3539)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- 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
-
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
6.592952E-4 = product of:
0.007252247 = sum of:
0.0025225237 = weight(_text_:in in 2500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0025225237 = score(doc=2500,freq=2.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2500, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2500)
0.0047297236 = product of:
0.009459447 = sum of:
0.009459447 = weight(_text_:science in 2500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009459447 = score(doc=2500,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2500, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2500)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.1, S.200-211
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mingers, J.: Statistical significance and effect sizes of differences among research universities at the level of nations and worldwide based on the Leiden rankings (2019)
0.00
5.494128E-4 = product of:
0.0060435403 = sum of:
0.0021021033 = weight(_text_:in in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0021021033 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
0.0039414368 = product of:
0.0078828735 = sum of:
0.0078828735 = weight(_text_:science in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0078828735 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.09090909 = coord(2/22)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.: Nature's top 100 revisited (2015)
0.00
5.067303E-4 = product of:
0.011148066 = sum of:
0.011148066 = product of:
0.022296133 = sum of:
0.022296133 = weight(_text_:science in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022296133 = score(doc=2351,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- 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
-
Collins, H.; Bornmann, L.: On scientific misconduct (2014)
0.00
5.016374E-4 = product of:
0.011036023 = sum of:
0.011036023 = product of:
0.022072045 = sum of:
0.022072045 = weight(_text_:science in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022072045 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1247, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1247)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1089-1090
-
Bornmann, L.: Scientific peer review (2011)
0.00
5.016374E-4 = product of:
0.011036023 = sum of:
0.011036023 = product of:
0.022072045 = sum of:
0.022072045 = weight(_text_:science in 1600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022072045 = score(doc=1600,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1600, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1600)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.197-245
-
Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Statistical tests and research assessments : a comment on Schneider (2012) (2013)
0.00
4.2997487E-4 = product of:
0.009459447 = sum of:
0.009459447 = product of:
0.018918894 = sum of:
0.018918894 = weight(_text_:science in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018918894 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1306-1308
-
Bornmann, L.; Bauer, J.; Haunschild, R.: Distribution of women and men among highly cited scientists (2015)
0.00
4.2997487E-4 = product of:
0.009459447 = sum of:
0.009459447 = product of:
0.018918894 = sum of:
0.018918894 = weight(_text_:science in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018918894 = score(doc=2349,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2715-2716
-
Bornmann, L.: What do altmetrics counts mean? : a plea for content analyses (2016)
0.00
4.2997487E-4 = product of:
0.009459447 = sum of:
0.009459447 = product of:
0.018918894 = sum of:
0.018918894 = weight(_text_:science in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018918894 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.1016-1017
-
Besselaar, P. van den; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Correct assumptions? (2016)
0.00
4.2997487E-4 = product of:
0.009459447 = sum of:
0.009459447 = product of:
0.018918894 = sum of:
0.018918894 = weight(_text_:science in 3020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018918894 = score(doc=3020,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3020, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3020)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1779
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Replicability and the public/private divide (2016)
0.00
4.2997487E-4 = product of:
0.009459447 = sum of:
0.009459447 = product of:
0.018918894 = sum of:
0.018918894 = weight(_text_:science in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018918894 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1777-1778
-
Egghe, L.; Bornmann, L.: Fallout and miss in journal peer review (2013)
0.00
3.5392272E-4 = product of:
0.0077862996 = sum of:
0.0077862996 = weight(_text_:in in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0077862996 = score(doc=1759,freq=14.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.27833787 = fieldWeight in 1759, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1759)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The authors exploit the analogy between journal peer review and information retrieval in order to quantify some imperfections of journal peer review. Design/methodology/approach - The authors define fallout rate and missing rate in order to describe quantitatively the weak papers that were accepted and the strong papers that were missed, respectively. To assess the quality of manuscripts the authors use bibliometric measures. Findings - Fallout rate and missing rate are put in relation with the hitting rate and success rate. Conclusions are drawn on what fraction of weak papers will be accepted in order to have a certain fraction of strong accepted papers. Originality/value - The paper illustrates that these curves are new in peer review research when interpreted in the information retrieval terminology.
-
Bornmann, L.; Ye, A.; Ye, F.: Identifying landmark publications in the long run using field-normalized citation data (2018)
0.00
2.5280195E-4 = product of:
0.005561643 = sum of:
0.005561643 = weight(_text_:in in 4196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005561643 = score(doc=4196,freq=14.0), product of:
0.027974274 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 4196, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4196)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- 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.
-
Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.: Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) : an empirical attempt to study a new field-normalized bibliometric indicator (2017)
0.00
2.508187E-4 = product of:
0.0055180113 = sum of:
0.0055180113 = product of:
0.011036023 = sum of:
0.011036023 = weight(_text_:science in 3541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011036023 = score(doc=3541,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0541719 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02056547 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 3541, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3541)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.045454547 = coord(1/22)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.4, S.1064-1067
