Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Cronin, B."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006) 0.01
    0.011307353 = product of:
      0.022614706 = sum of:
        0.022614706 = product of:
          0.090458825 = sum of:
            0.090458825 = weight(_text_:authors in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.090458825 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.22449365 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04924387 = 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)
      0.5 = 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) 0.01
    0.011307353 = product of:
      0.022614706 = sum of:
        0.022614706 = product of:
          0.090458825 = sum of:
            0.090458825 = weight(_text_:authors in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.090458825 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.22449365 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04924387 = 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)
      0.5 = 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.
  3. Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Who dunnit? : Metatags and hyperauthorship (2001) 0.01
    0.009893934 = product of:
      0.019787868 = sum of:
        0.019787868 = product of:
          0.079151474 = sum of:
            0.079151474 = weight(_text_:authors in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.079151474 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.22449365 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04924387 = queryNorm
                0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
          0.25 = coord(1/4)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Multiple authorship is a topic of growing concern in a number of scientific domains. When, as is increasingly common, scholarly articles and clinical reports have scores or even hundreds of authors-what Cronin (in press) has termed "hyperauthorship" -the precise nature of each individual's contribution is often masked. A notation that describes collaborators' contributions and allows those contributions to be tracked in, and across, texts (and over time) offers a solution. Such a notation should be useful, easy to use, and acceptable to communities of scientists. Drawing on earlier work, we present a proposal for an XML-like "contribution" mark-up, and discuss the potential benefits and possible drawbacks