Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Nicolaisen, J."
  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.01
    0.007886044 = product of:
      0.04731626 = sum of:
        0.04731626 = product of:
          0.09463252 = sum of:
            0.09463252 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09463252 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = queryNorm
                0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  2. Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The J-shaped distribution of citedness (2002) 0.00
    0.0011898974 = product of:
      0.0071393843 = sum of:
        0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071393843 = score(doc=3765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J-shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.