-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006)
0.04
0.036086798 = sum of:
0.012971531 = product of:
0.07782918 = sum of:
0.07782918 = weight(_text_:authors in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07782918 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19315039 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04236856 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.023115268 = product of:
0.046230536 = sum of:
0.046230536 = weight(_text_:h in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046230536 = score(doc=196,freq=8.0), product of:
0.10526253 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04236856 = queryNorm
0.4391927 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, 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.
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Applying the author affiliation index to library and information science journals (2008)
0.01
0.0064857653 = product of:
0.012971531 = sum of:
0.012971531 = product of:
0.07782918 = sum of:
0.07782918 = weight(_text_:authors in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07782918 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19315039 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04236856 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
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.
-
Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Who dunnit? : Metatags and hyperauthorship (2001)
0.01
0.005675045 = product of:
0.01135009 = sum of:
0.01135009 = product of:
0.068100534 = sum of:
0.068100534 = weight(_text_:authors in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.068100534 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19315039 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.04236856 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
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