Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

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

Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Themes