Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Cronin, B."
  • × author_ss:"Meho, L.I."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006) 0.05 
    0.052957594 = sum of:
  0.02398465 = product of:
    0.0959386 = sum of:
      0.0959386 = weight(_text_:authors in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0959386 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = 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)
  0.028972944 = product of:
    0.05794589 = sum of:
      0.05794589 = weight(_text_:b in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05794589 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, 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.
  2. Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Applying the author affiliation index to library and information science journals (2008) 0.05 
    0.052957594 = sum of:
  0.02398465 = product of:
    0.0959386 = sum of:
      0.0959386 = weight(_text_:authors in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0959386 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23809293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = 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)
  0.028972944 = product of:
    0.05794589 = sum of:
      0.05794589 = weight(_text_:b in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05794589 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18503809 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052226946 = queryNorm
          0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, 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.