Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Neuhaus, C."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. 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) 0.00 
    0.0013303459 = product of:
  0.007982075 = sum of:
    0.007982075 = weight(_text_:in in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007982075 = score(doc=2707,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.13442196 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  2. Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008) 0.00 
    0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation-enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis. Design/methodology/approach - The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation-enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus. Findings - The study suggests that citation-enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis. Originality/value - The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation-enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.

Authors