-
Prathap, G.: ¬The thermodynamics-bibliometrics consilience and the meaning of h-type indices (2012)
0.03
0.031955566 = product of:
0.047933348 = sum of:
0.023928396 = weight(_text_:of in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023928396 = score(doc=4990,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
0.02400495 = product of:
0.0480099 = sum of:
0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0480099 = score(doc=4990,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.430
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The inconsistency of the H-index (2012)
0.03
0.031955566 = product of:
0.047933348 = sum of:
0.023928396 = weight(_text_:of in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023928396 = score(doc=287,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
0.02400495 = product of:
0.0480099 = sum of:
0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0480099 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1466-1470
-
Prathap, G.: Quantity, quality, and consistency as bibliometric indicators (2014)
0.03
0.027283255 = product of:
0.04092488 = sum of:
0.016919931 = weight(_text_:of in 1178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016919931 = score(doc=1178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 1178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1178)
0.02400495 = product of:
0.0480099 = sum of:
0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 1178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0480099 = score(doc=1178,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1178, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1178)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.214
-
Prathap, G.: Measures for bibliometric size, impact, and concentration (2015)
0.03
0.027283255 = product of:
0.04092488 = sum of:
0.016919931 = weight(_text_:of in 2046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016919931 = score(doc=2046,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2046, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2046)
0.02400495 = product of:
0.0480099 = sum of:
0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 2046) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0480099 = score(doc=2046,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 2046, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2046)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.8, S.1740-1741
-
Prathap, G.: ¬A thermodynamic explanation for the Glänzel-Schubert model for the h-index (2011)
0.03
0.025708806 = product of:
0.038563207 = sum of:
0.02255991 = weight(_text_:of in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02255991 = score(doc=4453,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4453, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4453)
0.0160033 = product of:
0.0320066 = sum of:
0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0320066 = score(doc=4453,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 4453, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4453)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Recently, it was shown that among existing theoretical models for the h-index, the Glänzel-Schubert model provides the best fit for a chosen example involving the research evaluation of universities. In this brief communication, we propose a thermodynamic explanation for the success of the Glänzel-Schubert model of the h-index.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.5, S.992-994
-
Prathap, G.: Fractionalized exergy for evaluating research performance (2011)
0.03
0.025708806 = product of:
0.038563207 = sum of:
0.02255991 = weight(_text_:of in 4918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02255991 = score(doc=4918,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4918, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4918)
0.0160033 = product of:
0.0320066 = sum of:
0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 4918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0320066 = score(doc=4918,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 4918, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4918)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The approach based on "thermodynamic" considerations that can quantify research performance using an exergy term defined as X = iC, where i is the impact and C is the number of citations is now extended to cases where fractionalized counting of citations is used instead of integer counting.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2294-2295
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The zynergy-index and the formula for the h-index (2014)
0.02
0.023693837 = product of:
0.035540756 = sum of:
0.019537456 = weight(_text_:of in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019537456 = score(doc=1207,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
0.0160033 = product of:
0.0320066 = sum of:
0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0320066 = score(doc=1207,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The h-index, as originally proposed (Hirsch, 2005), is a purely heuristic construction. Burrell (2013) showed that efforts to derive formulae from the mathematical framework of Lotkaian informetrics could lead to misleading results. On this note, we argue that a simple heuristic "thermodynamical" model can enable a better three-dimensional (3D) evaluation of the information production process leading to what we call the zynergy-index.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.426-427
-
Prathap, G.: ¬A three-class, three-dimensional bibliometric performance indicator (2014)
0.02
0.022736046 = product of:
0.034104068 = sum of:
0.014099943 = weight(_text_:of in 1308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014099943 = score(doc=1308,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 1308, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1308)
0.020004123 = product of:
0.040008247 = sum of:
0.040008247 = weight(_text_:science in 1308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040008247 = score(doc=1308,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 1308, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1308)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.7, S.1506-1508
-
Prathap, G.: Measures for impact, consistency, and the h- and g-indices (2014)
0.02
0.02130371 = product of:
0.031955563 = sum of:
0.015952265 = weight(_text_:of in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015952265 = score(doc=1250,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
0.0160033 = product of:
0.0320066 = sum of:
0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0320066 = score(doc=1250,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- An altogether different view on the properties of a good performance measure than that given in Egghe (2012) is offered. Egghe argued that a good impact measure should reward nonconsistency; that is, the more citations over papers are unequally distributed, the higher the impact should be. Here, a quantitative proxy for consistency is offered, and it is shown that as consistency increases, the ideal performance measure, which is sensitive to changes in consistency, should increase, reflecting this virtue.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1076-1078