Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  1. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.09 
    0.09248682 = product of:
  0.18497364 = sum of:
    0.18497364 = sum of:
      0.100288466 = weight(_text_:w in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100288466 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.5052462 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.08468518 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08468518 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = 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)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  2. 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) 0.04 
    0.03584373 = sum of:
  0.0149503 = product of:
    0.0598012 = sum of:
      0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0598012 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = 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)
  0.02089343 = product of:
    0.04178686 = sum of:
      0.04178686 = weight(_text_:w in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04178686 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05208721 = queryNorm
          0.21051927 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, 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.
  3. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.02 
    0.021142917 = product of:
  0.042285834 = sum of:
    0.042285834 = product of:
      0.16914333 = sum of:
        0.16914333 = weight(_text_:authors in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16914333 = score(doc=3231,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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 
    0.018126275 = product of:
  0.03625255 = sum of:
    0.03625255 = product of:
      0.1450102 = sum of:
        0.1450102 = weight(_text_:authors in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1450102 = score(doc=1759,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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.; Marx, W.: Distributions instead of single numbers : percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers (2014) 0.01 
    0.014625401 = product of:
  0.029250802 = sum of:
    0.029250802 = product of:
      0.058501605 = sum of:
        0.058501605 = weight(_text_:w in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058501605 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.29472697 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  6. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Barth, A.; Leydesdorff, L.: Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) (2014) 0.01 
    0.014625401 = product of:
  0.029250802 = sum of:
    0.029250802 = product of:
      0.058501605 = sum of:
        0.058501605 = weight(_text_:w in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058501605 = score(doc=1238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.29472697 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  7. Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: ¬The wisdom of citing scientists (2014) 0.01 
    0.014625401 = product of:
  0.029250802 = sum of:
    0.029250802 = product of:
      0.058501605 = sum of:
        0.058501605 = weight(_text_:w in 1293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058501605 = score(doc=1293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.29472697 = fieldWeight in 1293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  8. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.01 
    0.014114196 = product of:
  0.028228393 = sum of:
    0.028228393 = product of:
      0.056456786 = sum of:
        0.056456786 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056456786 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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
  9. Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013) 0.01 
    0.012536058 = product of:
  0.025072116 = sum of:
    0.025072116 = product of:
      0.050144233 = sum of:
        0.050144233 = weight(_text_:w in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050144233 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.2526231 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  10. 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 
    0.010585647 = product of:
  0.021171294 = sum of:
    0.021171294 = product of:
      0.04234259 = sum of:
        0.04234259 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04234259 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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
  11. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.01 
    0.010585647 = product of:
  0.021171294 = sum of:
    0.021171294 = product of:
      0.04234259 = sum of:
        0.04234259 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04234259 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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
  12. 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 
    0.010571458 = product of:
  0.021142917 = sum of:
    0.021142917 = product of:
      0.08457167 = sum of:
        0.08457167 = weight(_text_:authors in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08457167 = score(doc=3539,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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.
  13. 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 
    0.010446715 = product of:
  0.02089343 = sum of:
    0.02089343 = product of:
      0.04178686 = sum of:
        0.04178686 = weight(_text_:w in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04178686 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.21051927 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  14. Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: ¬The Anna Karenina principle : a way of thinking about success in science (2012) 0.01 
    0.010446715 = product of:
  0.02089343 = sum of:
    0.02089343 = product of:
      0.04178686 = sum of:
        0.04178686 = weight(_text_:w in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04178686 = score(doc=449,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.21051927 = fieldWeight in 449, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  15. 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 
    0.010446715 = product of:
  0.02089343 = sum of:
    0.02089343 = product of:
      0.04178686 = sum of:
        0.04178686 = weight(_text_:w in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04178686 = score(doc=3160,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.21051927 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  16. 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) 0.01 
    0.010446715 = product of:
  0.02089343 = sum of:
    0.02089343 = product of:
      0.04178686 = sum of:
        0.04178686 = weight(_text_:w in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04178686 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19849424 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.21051927 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8108058 = idf(docFreq=2659, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  17. 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 
    0.00897018 = product of:
  0.01794036 = sum of:
    0.01794036 = product of:
      0.07176144 = sum of:
        0.07176144 = weight(_text_:authors in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07176144 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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.
  18. 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 
    0.008821373 = product of:
  0.017642746 = sum of:
    0.017642746 = product of:
      0.03528549 = sum of:
        0.03528549 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03528549 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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
  19. Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015) 0.01 
    0.00747515 = product of:
  0.0149503 = sum of:
    0.0149503 = product of:
      0.0598012 = sum of:
        0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0598012 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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.
  20. 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 
    0.00747515 = product of:
  0.0149503 = sum of:
    0.0149503 = product of:
      0.0598012 = sum of:
        0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0598012 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = 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).

Authors

Themes