Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  1. 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) 0.02 
    0.024105377 = sum of:
  0.01512257 = product of:
    0.06049028 = sum of:
      0.06049028 = weight(_text_:authors in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06049028 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.008982807 = product of:
    0.017965615 = sum of:
      0.017965615 = weight(_text_:h in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017965615 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052687407 = 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)
    0.5 = 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.
  2. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02 
    0.021415249 = product of:
  0.042830497 = sum of:
    0.042830497 = product of:
      0.085660994 = sum of:
        0.085660994 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085660994 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  3. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.02 
    0.021386545 = product of:
  0.04277309 = sum of:
    0.04277309 = product of:
      0.17109236 = sum of:
        0.17109236 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17109236 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.7123147 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  4. Egghe, L.; Bornmann, L.: Fallout and miss in journal peer review (2013) 0.02 
    0.018335143 = product of:
  0.036670286 = sum of:
    0.036670286 = product of:
      0.14668114 = sum of:
        0.14668114 = weight(_text_:authors in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14668114 = score(doc=1759,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 1759, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1759)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  5. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007) 0.02 
    0.01778505 = product of:
  0.0355701 = sum of:
    0.0355701 = product of:
      0.0711402 = sum of:
        0.0711402 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0711402 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Jorge Hirsch recently proposed the h index to quantify the research output of individual scientists. The new index has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific community. The claim that the h index in a single number provides a good representation of the scientific lifetime achievement of a scientist as well as the (supposed) simple calculation of the h index using common literature databases lead to the danger of improper use of the index. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the h index and summarize the studies on the convergent validity of this index. We also introduce corrections and complements as well as single-number alternatives to the h index.
    Object
    H-Index
  6. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.01 
    0.014276832 = product of:
  0.028553665 = sum of:
    0.028553665 = product of:
      0.05710733 = sum of:
        0.05710733 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05710733 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  7. Collins, H.; Bornmann, L.: On scientific misconduct (2014) 0.01 
    0.012575929 = product of:
  0.025151858 = sum of:
    0.025151858 = product of:
      0.050303716 = sum of:
        0.050303716 = weight(_text_:h in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050303716 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  8. 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 
    0.010707624 = product of:
  0.021415249 = sum of:
    0.021415249 = product of:
      0.042830497 = sum of:
        0.042830497 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042830497 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:44:17
  9. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.01 
    0.010707624 = product of:
  0.021415249 = sum of:
    0.021415249 = product of:
      0.042830497 = sum of:
        0.042830497 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042830497 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
  10. 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) 0.01 
    0.010693273 = product of:
  0.021386545 = sum of:
    0.021386545 = product of:
      0.08554618 = sum of:
        0.08554618 = weight(_text_:authors in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08554618 = score(doc=3539,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 3539, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3539)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  11. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? : a comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine (2008) 0.01 
    0.010043084 = product of:
  0.020086167 = sum of:
    0.020086167 = product of:
      0.040172335 = sum of:
        0.040172335 = weight(_text_:h in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040172335 = score(doc=1608,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.30689526 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this study, we examined empirical results on the h index and its most important variants in order to determine whether the variants developed are associated with an incremental contribution for evaluation purposes. The results of a factor analysis using bibliographic data on postdoctoral researchers in biomedicine indicate that regarding the h index and its variants, we are dealing with two types of indices that load on one factor each. One type describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and gives the number of papers in that core. The other type of indices describes the impact of the papers in the core. Because an index for evaluative purposes is a useful yardstick for comparison among scientists if the index corresponds strongly with peer assessments, we calculated a logistic regression analysis with the two factors resulting from the factor analysis as independent variables and peer assessment of the postdoctoral researchers as the dependent variable. The results of the regression analysis show that peer assessments can be predicted better using the factor impact of the productive core than using the factor quantity of the productive core.
  12. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.D.: Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? (2009) 0.01 
    0.010043084 = product of:
  0.020086167 = sum of:
    0.020086167 = product of:
      0.040172335 = sum of:
        0.040172335 = weight(_text_:h in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040172335 = score(doc=2861,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.30689526 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs number of publications (for the quantity dimension) and total citation counts (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between number of publications and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between total citation counts and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.
    Object
    h-Index
  13. 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) 0.01 
    0.009073542 = product of:
  0.018147085 = sum of:
    0.018147085 = product of:
      0.07258834 = sum of:
        0.07258834 = weight(_text_:authors in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07258834 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  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.
  14. 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 
    0.00892302 = product of:
  0.01784604 = sum of:
    0.01784604 = product of:
      0.03569208 = sum of:
        0.03569208 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03569208 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18450232 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
  15. Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015) 0.01 
    0.007561285 = product of:
  0.01512257 = sum of:
    0.01512257 = product of:
      0.06049028 = sum of:
        0.06049028 = weight(_text_:authors in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06049028 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  16. Bornmann, L.: How much does the expected number of citations for a publication change if it contains the address of a specific scientific institute? : a new approach for the analysis of citation data on the institutional level based on regression models (2016) 0.01 
    0.007561285 = product of:
  0.01512257 = sum of:
    0.01512257 = product of:
      0.06049028 = sum of:
        0.06049028 = weight(_text_:authors in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06049028 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Citation data for institutes are generally provided as numbers of citations or as relative citation rates (as, for example, in the Leiden Ranking). These numbers can then be compared between the institutes. This study aims to present a new approach for the evaluation of citation data at the institutional level, based on regression models. As example data, the study includes all articles and reviews from the Web of Science for the publication year 2003 (n?=?886,416 papers). The study is based on an in-house database of the Max Planck Society. The study investigates how much the expected number of citations for a publication changes if it contains the address of an institute. The calculation of the expected values allows, on the one hand, investigating how the citation impact of the papers of an institute appears in comparison with the total of all papers. On the other hand, the expected values for several institutes can be compared with one another or with a set of randomly selected publications. Besides the institutes, the regression models include factors which can be assumed to have a general influence on citation counts (e.g., the number of authors).
  17. Bornmann, L.; Ye, A.; Ye, F.: Identifying landmark publications in the long run using field-normalized citation data (2018) 0.01 
    0.007561285 = product of:
  0.01512257 = sum of:
    0.01512257 = product of:
      0.06049028 = sum of:
        0.06049028 = weight(_text_:authors in 4196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06049028 = score(doc=4196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24019209 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 4196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4196)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  18. 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 
    0.006351804 = product of:
  0.012703608 = sum of:
    0.012703608 = product of:
      0.025407216 = sum of:
        0.025407216 = weight(_text_:h in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025407216 = score(doc=4132,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  19. Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013) 0.01 
    0.005389684 = product of:
  0.010779368 = sum of:
    0.010779368 = product of:
      0.021558736 = sum of:
        0.021558736 = weight(_text_:h in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021558736 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.
  20. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? : The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine (2007) 0.00 
    0.0044914037 = product of:
  0.008982807 = sum of:
    0.008982807 = product of:
      0.017965615 = sum of:
        0.017965615 = weight(_text_:h in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017965615 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13089918 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052687407 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 24
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes