Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.041635513 = product of:
  0.08327103 = sum of:
    0.08327103 = product of:
      0.16654205 = sum of:
        0.16654205 = weight(_text_:n in 526) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16654205 = score(doc=526,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.22335295 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = queryNorm
            0.74564517 = fieldWeight in 526, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.3116565 = idf(docFreq=1611, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=526)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present a model that describes which fraction of the literature on a certain topic we will find when we use n (n = 1, 2, .) databases. It is a generalization of the theory of discovering usability problems. We prove that, in all practical cases, this fraction is a concave function of n, the number of used databases, thereby explaining some graphs that exist in the literature. We also study limiting features of this fraction for n very high and we characterize the case that we find all literature on a certain topic for n high enough.

0.018027065 = product of:
  0.03605413 = sum of:
    0.03605413 = product of:
      0.14421652 = sum of:
        0.14421652 = weight(_text_:authors in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14421652 = score(doc=1759,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = 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.

0.01754618 = product of:
  0.03509236 = sum of:
    0.03509236 = product of:
      0.07018472 = sum of:
        0.07018472 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07018472 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1814022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = 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

0.0074342364 = product of:
  0.014868473 = sum of:
    0.014868473 = product of:
      0.05947389 = sum of:
        0.05947389 = weight(_text_:authors in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05947389 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23615624 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05180212 = 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