-
Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004)
0.02
0.022259334 = product of:
0.04451867 = sum of:
0.04451867 = product of:
0.17807467 = sum of:
0.17807467 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17807467 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
0.33918214 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05047238 = queryNorm
0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000)
0.01
0.011800191 = product of:
0.023600383 = sum of:
0.023600383 = product of:
0.047200765 = sum of:
0.047200765 = weight(_text_:g in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047200765 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1895716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.05047238 = queryNorm
0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Rousseau, R.; Jin, B.: ¬The age-dependent h-type AR**2-index : basic properties and a case study (2008)
0.01
0.011800191 = product of:
0.023600383 = sum of:
0.023600383 = product of:
0.047200765 = sum of:
0.047200765 = weight(_text_:g in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047200765 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1895716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.05047238 = queryNorm
0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Hirsch-type indices are studied with special attention to the AR**2-index introduced by Jin. The article consists of two parts: a theoretical part and a practical illustration. In the theoretical part, we recall the definition of the AR**2-index and show that an alternative definition, the so-called AR**2,1, does not have the properties expected for this type of index. A practical example shows the existence of some of these mathematical properties and illustrates the difference between different h-type indices. Clearly the h-index itself is the most robust of all. It is shown that excluding so-called non-WoS source articles may have a significant influence on the R-and, especially, the g-index.
-
Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006)
0.01
0.010257466 = product of:
0.020514932 = sum of:
0.020514932 = product of:
0.041029863 = sum of:
0.041029863 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041029863 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17674567 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05047238 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:26:24
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.01
0.0068383105 = product of:
0.013676621 = sum of:
0.013676621 = product of:
0.027353242 = sum of:
0.027353242 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027353242 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17674567 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05047238 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35