-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The inconsistency of the h-index : the case of web accessibility in Western European countries (2012)
0.02
0.01942933 = product of:
0.097146645 = sum of:
0.097146645 = sum of:
0.053691365 = weight(_text_:h in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053691365 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.5208185 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345528 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis), the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.
- Object
- h-index
-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The relation between eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight (2010)
0.01
0.0050697834 = product of:
0.025348917 = sum of:
0.025348917 = product of:
0.050697833 = sum of:
0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 3596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050697833 = score(doc=3596,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 3596, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3596)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van; Raan, A.F.J. van: Universality of citation distributions revisited (2012)
0.01
0.0050697834 = product of:
0.025348917 = sum of:
0.025348917 = product of:
0.050697833 = sum of:
0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 4963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050697833 = score(doc=4963,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 4963, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4963)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Eck, N.J. van; Waltman, L.; Dekker, R.; Berg, J. van den: ¬A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping : multidimensional scaling and VOS (2010)
0.00
0.0043455283 = product of:
0.02172764 = sum of:
0.02172764 = product of:
0.04345528 = sum of:
0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 4112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345528 = score(doc=4112,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 4112, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4112)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Colavizza, G.; Boyack, K.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Waltman, L.: ¬The closer the better : similarity of publication pairs at different cocitation levels (2018)
0.00
0.0043455283 = product of:
0.02172764 = sum of:
0.02172764 = product of:
0.04345528 = sum of:
0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345528 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science : keyword maps in Google scholar citations (2012)
0.00
0.0036212734 = product of:
0.018106367 = sum of:
0.018106367 = product of:
0.036212735 = sum of:
0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036212735 = score(doc=511,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Waltman, L.; Calero-Medina, C.; Kosten, J.; Noyons, E.C.M.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van; Visser, M.S.; Wouters, P.: ¬The Leiden ranking 2011/2012 : data collection, indicators, and interpretation (2012)
0.00
0.0036212734 = product of:
0.018106367 = sum of:
0.018106367 = product of:
0.036212735 = sum of:
0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036212735 = score(doc=514,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)