Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.D.: Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? (2009)
0.00
0.0034699338 = product of: 0.010409801 = sum of: 0.010409801 = weight(_text_:a in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of: 0.010409801 = score(doc=2861,freq=16.0), product of: 0.057779714 = queryWeight, product of: 1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218) 0.05011046 = queryNorm 0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of: 4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of: 16.0 = termFreq=16.0 1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218) 0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861) 0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs number of publications (for the quantity dimension) and total citation counts (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between number of publications and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between total citation counts and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.
- Type
- a
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.D.: What do citation counts measure? : a review of studies on citing behavior (2008)
0.00
0.0032458256 = product of: 0.009737477 = sum of: 0.009737477 = weight(_text_:a in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of: 0.009737477 = score(doc=1729,freq=14.0), product of: 0.057779714 = queryWeight, product of: 1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218) 0.05011046 = queryNorm 0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of: 3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of: 14.0 = termFreq=14.0 1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218) 0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1729) 0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a narrative review of studies on the citing behavior of scientists, covering mainly research published in the last 15 years. Based on the results of these studies, the paper seeks to answer the question of the extent to which scientists are motivated to cite a publication not only to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of scientific peers, but also for other, possibly non-scientific, reasons. Design/methodology/approach - The review covers research published from the early 1960s up to mid-2005 (approximately 30 studies on citing behavior-reporting results in about 40 publications). Findings - The general tendency of the results of the empirical studies makes it clear that citing behavior is not motivated solely by the wish to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of colleague scientists, since the individual studies reveal also other, in part non-scientific, factors that play a part in the decision to cite. However, the results of the studies must also be deemed scarcely reliable: the studies vary widely in design, and their results can hardly be replicated. Many of the studies have methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, there is evidence that the different motivations of citers are "not so different or 'randomly given' to such an extent that the phenomenon of citation would lose its role as a reliable measure of impact". Originality/value - Given the increasing importance of evaluative bibliometrics in the world of scholarship, the question "What do citation counts measure?" is a particularly relevant and topical issue.
- Type
- a
Authors
- Bornmann, L. 2
- Mutz, R. 1