-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? : The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine (2007)
0.01
0.010366008 = product of:
0.020732015 = sum of:
0.020732015 = product of:
0.031098021 = sum of:
0.015574021 = weight(_text_:m in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015574021 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11329143 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.04552693 = queryNorm
0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.015524 = weight(_text_:h in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015524 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11310934 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04552693 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Scientists may seek to report a single definable body of research in more than one publication, that is, in repeated reports of the same work or in fractional reports, in order to disseminate their research as widely as possible in the scientific community. Up to now, however, it has not been examined whether this strategy of "multiple publication" in fact leads to greater reception of the research. In the present study, we investigate the influence of number of articles reporting the results of a single study on reception in the scientific community (total citation counts of an article on a single study). Our data set consists of 96 applicants for a research fellowship from the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF), an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. The applicants reported to us all articles that they had published within the framework of their doctoral research projects. On this single project, the applicants had published from 1 to 16 articles (M = 4; Mdn = 3). The results of a regression model with an interaction term show that the practice of multiple publication of research study results does in fact lead to greater reception of the research (higher total citation counts) in the scientific community. However, reception is dependent upon length of article: the longer the article, the more total citation counts increase with the number of articles. Thus, it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports.
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007)
0.01
0.010245318 = product of:
0.020490635 = sum of:
0.020490635 = product of:
0.0614719 = sum of:
0.0614719 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0614719 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
0.11310934 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04552693 = queryNorm
0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Jorge Hirsch recently proposed the h index to quantify the research output of individual scientists. The new index has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific community. The claim that the h index in a single number provides a good representation of the scientific lifetime achievement of a scientist as well as the (supposed) simple calculation of the h index using common literature databases lead to the danger of improper use of the index. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the h index and summarize the studies on the convergent validity of this index. We also introduce corrections and complements as well as single-number alternatives to the h index.
- Object
- H-Index
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? : a comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine (2008)
0.01
0.0057854536 = product of:
0.011570907 = sum of:
0.011570907 = product of:
0.03471272 = sum of:
0.03471272 = weight(_text_:h in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03471272 = score(doc=1608,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11310934 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04552693 = queryNorm
0.30689526 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this study, we examined empirical results on the h index and its most important variants in order to determine whether the variants developed are associated with an incremental contribution for evaluation purposes. The results of a factor analysis using bibliographic data on postdoctoral researchers in biomedicine indicate that regarding the h index and its variants, we are dealing with two types of indices that load on one factor each. One type describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and gives the number of papers in that core. The other type of indices describes the impact of the papers in the core. Because an index for evaluative purposes is a useful yardstick for comparison among scientists if the index corresponds strongly with peer assessments, we calculated a logistic regression analysis with the two factors resulting from the factor analysis as independent variables and peer assessment of the postdoctoral researchers as the dependent variable. The results of the regression analysis show that peer assessments can be predicted better using the factor impact of the productive core than using the factor quantity of the productive core.
-
Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008)
0.00
0.0036222665 = product of:
0.007244533 = sum of:
0.007244533 = product of:
0.021733599 = sum of:
0.021733599 = weight(_text_:h in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021733599 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11310934 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04552693 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Universality of citation distributions : a validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry (2009)
0.00
0.0025873333 = product of:
0.0051746666 = sum of:
0.0051746666 = product of:
0.015524 = sum of:
0.015524 = weight(_text_:h in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015524 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11310934 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04552693 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008)
0.00
0.0020698668 = product of:
0.0041397335 = sum of:
0.0041397335 = product of:
0.0124192 = sum of:
0.0124192 = weight(_text_:h in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0124192 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11310934 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04552693 = queryNorm
0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
