Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Hicks, D."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011) 0.02 
    0.023691658 = product of:
  0.047383316 = sum of:
    0.047383316 = sum of:
      0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00994303 = score(doc=4192,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4192, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4192)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4192)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This is a study of coverage and overlap in second-generation social sciences and humanities journal lists, with attention paid to curation and the judgment of scholarliness. We identify four factors underpinning coverage shortfalls: journal language, country, publisher size, and age. Analyzing these factors turns our attention to the process of assessing a journal as scholarly, which is a necessary foundation for every list of scholarly journals. Although scholarliness should be a quality inherent in the journal, coverage falls short because groups assessing scholarliness have different perspectives on the social sciences and humanities literature. That the four factors shape perspectives on the literature points to a deeper problem of fragmentation within the scholarly community. We propose reducing this fragmentation as the best method to reduce coverage shortfalls.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:21:28
    Type
    a
  2. Katz, J.S.; Hicks, D.: How much is a collaboration worth? : a calibrated bibliometric model (1997) 0.00 
    0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=1022,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    There are numerous international and national programmes to encourage collaboration. However, little is known about the way in which collaboration changes the impact of a research publication. Explores hoe the impact (average citations per paper) varies with different types of collaboration. A calibrated bibliometric model is derived that demonstrates that collaborating with an author from the home institution or another domestic institution increases the average impact by about 0,75 citations while collaborating with an author from a foreign institution increases the impact by about 1.6 citations
    Type
    a
  3. Hicks, D.; Wouters, P.; Waltman, L.; Rijcke, S. de; Rafols, I.: ¬The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics : 10 principles to guide research evaluation (2015) 0.00 
    0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=1994,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Research evaluation has become routine and often relies on metrics. But it is increasingly driven by data and not by expert judgement. As a result, the procedures that were designed to increase the quality of research are now threatening to damage the scientific system. To support researchers and managers, five experts led by Diana Hicks, professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, and Paul Wouters, director of CWTS at Leiden University, have proposed ten principles for the measurement of research performance: the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics published as a comment in Nature.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years