-
Egghe, L.: ¬A good normalized impact and concentration measure (2014)
0.03
0.028719366 = product of:
0.05743873 = sum of:
0.05743873 = product of:
0.11487746 = sum of:
0.11487746 = weight(_text_:g in 1508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11487746 = score(doc=1508,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.052116565 = queryNorm
0.5868668 = fieldWeight in 1508, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1508)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- It is shown that a normalized version of the g-index is a good normalized impact and concentration measure. A proposal for such a measure by Bartolucci is improved.
- Object
- g-index
-
Egghe, L.: Remarks on the paper by A. De Visscher, "what does the g-index really measure?" (2012)
0.02
0.024621727 = product of:
0.049243454 = sum of:
0.049243454 = product of:
0.09848691 = sum of:
0.09848691 = weight(_text_:g in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09848691 = score(doc=463,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.052116565 = queryNorm
0.5031335 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The author presents a different view on properties of impact measures than given in the paper of De Visscher (2011). He argues that a good impact measure works better when citations are concentrated rather than spread out over articles. The author also presents theoretical evidence that the g-index and the R-index can be close to the square root of the total number of citations, whereas this is not the case for the A-index. Here the author confirms an assertion of De Visscher.
- Object
- g-index
-
Egghe, L.; Bornmann, L.: Fallout and miss in journal peer review (2013)
0.02
0.018136492 = product of:
0.036272984 = sum of:
0.036272984 = product of:
0.14509194 = sum of:
0.14509194 = weight(_text_:authors in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14509194 = score(doc=1759,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052116565 = queryNorm
0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 1759, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1759)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The authors exploit the analogy between journal peer review and information retrieval in order to quantify some imperfections of journal peer review. Design/methodology/approach - The authors define fallout rate and missing rate in order to describe quantitatively the weak papers that were accepted and the strong papers that were missed, respectively. To assess the quality of manuscripts the authors use bibliometric measures. Findings - Fallout rate and missing rate are put in relation with the hitting rate and success rate. Conclusions are drawn on what fraction of weak papers will be accepted in order to have a certain fraction of strong accepted papers. Originality/value - The paper illustrates that these curves are new in peer review research when interpreted in the information retrieval terminology.
-
Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012)
0.02
0.017652689 = product of:
0.035305377 = sum of:
0.035305377 = product of:
0.070610754 = sum of:
0.070610754 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.070610754 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18250333 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052116565 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 14. 2.2012 12:53:22
-
Rousseau, R.; Egghe, L.; Guns, R.: Becoming metric-wise : a bibliometric guide for researchers (2018)
0.01
0.0074793627 = product of:
0.014958725 = sum of:
0.014958725 = product of:
0.0598349 = sum of:
0.0598349 = weight(_text_:authors in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0598349 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052116565 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Aims to inform researchers about metrics so that they become aware of the evaluative techniques being applied to their scientific output. Understanding these concepts will help them during their funding initiatives, and in hiring and tenure. The book not only describes what indicators do (or are designed to do, which is not always the same thing), but also gives precise mathematical formulae so that indicators can be properly understood and evaluated. Metrics have become a critical issue in science, with widespread international discussion taking place on the subject across scientific journals and organizations. As researchers should know the publication-citation context, the mathematical formulae of indicators being used by evaluating committees and their consequences, and how such indicators might be misused, this book provides an ideal tome on the topic. Provides researchers with a detailed understanding of bibliometric indicators and their applications. Empowers researchers looking to understand the indicators relevant to their work and careers. Presents an informed and rounded picture of bibliometrics, including the strengths and shortcomings of particular indicators. Supplies the mathematics behind bibliometric indicators so they can be properly understood. Written by authors with longstanding expertise who are considered global leaders in the field of bibliometrics
