Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02869556 = product of:
  0.0717389 = sum of:
    0.0628398 = weight(_text_:engineering in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0628398 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.008899102 = product of:
      0.026697304 = sum of:
        0.026697304 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026697304 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

0.01508155 = product of:
  0.07540775 = sum of:
    0.07540775 = weight(_text_:engineering in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07540775 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

0.0021357841 = product of:
  0.010678921 = sum of:
    0.010678921 = product of:
      0.032036763 = sum of:
        0.032036763 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032036763 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

0.0017959764 = product of:
  0.008979882 = sum of:
    0.008979882 = product of:
      0.026939645 = sum of:
        0.026939645 = weight(_text_:29 in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026939645 = score(doc=1200,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

29. 1.2014 16:38:28