-
Marx, W.: Wie mißt man Forschungsqualität? : der Science Citation Index - ein Maßstab für die Bewertung (1996)
0.06
0.055505704 = product of:
0.13876426 = sum of:
0.10148491 = weight(_text_:index in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10148491 = score(doc=5036,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.5462205 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 5036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03727935 = score(doc=5036,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 5036, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5036)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Ein überfordertes Gutachter-System, knapper fließende Forschungsgelder sowie die starke Faszination von Ranglisten bewirken zunehmend den Einsatz bibliometrischer Methoden zur Messung von Forschungsqualität. Grundlage der meisten Bewertungen ist der Science Citation Index, der nun auch in der Version als Online-Datenbank für umfangreiche Analysen genutzt werden kann. Erweiterungen der Retrievalsprache beim Host STN International ermöglichen statistische Analysen, die bisher nur dem SCI-Hersteller und wenigen Spezialisten vorbehalten waren. Voraussetzung für eine sinnvolle Anwendung sind vor allem die Wahl geeigneter Selektionskriterien sowie die sorgfältige Interpretation der Ergebnisse im Rahmen der Grenzen dieser Methoden
-
Bornmann, L.; Schier, H.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-D.: Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? : a study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes (2011)
0.01
0.013195123 = product of:
0.032987807 = sum of:
0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023299592 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
0.009688215 = product of:
0.029064644 = sum of:
0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029064644 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4132, 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=4132)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In a comprehensive research project, we investigated the predictive validity of selection decisions and reviewers' ratings at the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). ACP is a high-impact journal publishing papers on the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes. Scientific journals have to deal with the following question concerning the predictive validity: Are in fact the "best" scientific works selected from the manuscripts submitted? In this study we examined whether selecting the "best" manuscripts means selecting papers that after publication show top citation performance as compared to other papers in this research area. First, we appraised the citation impact of later published manuscripts based on the percentile citedness rank classes of the population distribution (scaling in a specific subfield). Second, we analyzed the association between the decisions (n = 677 accepted or rejected, but published elsewhere manuscripts) or ratings (reviewers' ratings for n = 315 manuscripts), respectively, and the citation impact classes of the manuscripts. The results confirm the predictive validity of the ACP peer review system.
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 18:29:40
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010)
0.01
0.008970084 = product of:
0.044850416 = sum of:
0.044850416 = weight(_text_:index in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044850416 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
-
Neuhaus, C.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-W.: ¬The publication and citation impact profiles of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts : a case study on the limitations of the Journal Impact Factor (2009)
0.01
0.0071760663 = product of:
0.03588033 = sum of:
0.03588033 = weight(_text_:index in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03588033 = score(doc=2707,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) published by Thomson Reuters is often used to evaluate the significance and performance of scientific journals. Besides methodological problems with the JIF, the critical issue is whether a single measure is sufficient for characterizing the impact of journals, particularly the impact of multidisciplinary and wide-scope journals that publish articles in a broad range of research fields. Taking Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society as examples, we examined the two journals' publication and impact profiles across the sections of Chemical Abstracts and compared the results with the JIF. The analysis was based primarily on Communications published in Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society during 2001 to 2005. The findings show that the information available in the Science Citation Index is a rather unreliable indication of the document type and is therefore inappropriate for comparative analysis. The findings further suggest that the composition of the journal in terms of contribution types, the length of the citation window, and the thematic focus of the journal in terms of the sections of Chemical Abstracts has a significant influence on the overall journal citation impact. Therefore, a single measure of journal citation impact such as the JIF is insufficient for characterizing the significance and performance of wide-scope journals. For the comparison of journals, more sophisticated methods such as publication and impact profiles across subject headings of bibliographic databases (e.g., the sections of Chemical Abstracts) are valuable.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.00
0.0046085096 = product of:
0.023042548 = sum of:
0.023042548 = product of:
0.06912764 = sum of:
0.06912764 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06912764 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: Distributions instead of single numbers : percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers (2014)
0.00
0.0027127003 = product of:
0.013563501 = sum of:
0.013563501 = product of:
0.0406905 = sum of:
0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0406905 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 15:58:21
