Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006)
0.03
0.027137194 = sum of:
0.02436547 = product of:
0.09746188 = sum of:
0.09746188 = weight(_text_:authors in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09746188 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.002771724 = product of:
0.005543448 = sum of:
0.005543448 = weight(_text_:s in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005543448 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.9, S.1275-1278
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Applying the author affiliation index to library and information science journals (2008)
0.03
0.027137194 = sum of:
0.02436547 = product of:
0.09746188 = sum of:
0.09746188 = weight(_text_:authors in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09746188 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2418733 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.40294603 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.002771724 = product of:
0.005543448 = sum of:
0.005543448 = weight(_text_:s in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005543448 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.057684682 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.053056188 = queryNorm
0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The authors use a novel method - the Author Affiliation Index (AAI) - to determine whether faculty at the top-10 North American library and information science (LIS) programs have a disproportionate presence in the premier journals of the field. The study finds that LIS may be both too small and too interdisciplinary a domain for the AAI to provide reliable results.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.11, S.1861-1865