Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000) 0.06

0.06054695 = sum of:
  0.033942703 = product of:
    0.13577081 = sum of:
      0.13577081 = weight(_text_:authors in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13577081 = score(doc=4384,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25938067 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056896523 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.026604248 = product of:
    0.053208496 = sum of:
      0.053208496 = weight(_text_:g in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053208496 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21370034 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056896523 = 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)

Abstract: One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance

Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.04
```
0.04463061 = sum of:
  0.029213225 = product of:
    0.1168529 = sum of:
      0.1168529 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1168529 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.25938067 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056896523 = queryNorm
          0.45050737 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.015417386 = product of:
    0.030834772 = sum of:
      0.030834772 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030834772 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19924192 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.056896523 = 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)
```
Abstract

Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.

Date

9. 7.2006 10:22:35
Kretschmer, H.; Rousseau, R.: Author inflation leads to a breakdown of Lotka's law : in and out of context (2001) 0.02
```
0.016971352 = product of:
  0.033942703 = sum of:
    0.033942703 = product of:
      0.13577081 = sum of:
        0.13577081 = weight(_text_:authors in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13577081 = score(doc=5205,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25938067 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056896523 = queryNorm
            0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Fractional counting of authors of multi-authored papers has been shown to lead to a breakdown of Lotka's Law despite its robust character under most circumstances. Kretschmer and Rousseau use the normal count method of full credit for each author on two five-year bibliographies from each of 13 Dutch physics institutes where high co-authorship is a common occurrence. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were preformed to see if the Lotka distribution fit the data. All bibliographies up to 40 authors fit acceptably; no bibliography with a paper with over 100 authors fits the distribution. The underlying traditional "success breeds success" mechanism assumes new items on a one by one basis, but Egghe's generalized model would still account for the process. It seems unlikely that Lotka's Law will hold in a high co-authorship environment.
Rousseau, R.; Jin, B.: ¬The age-dependent h-type AR**2-index : basic properties and a case study (2008) 0.01
```
0.013302124 = product of:
  0.026604248 = sum of:
    0.026604248 = product of:
      0.053208496 = sum of:
        0.053208496 = weight(_text_:g in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053208496 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21370034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056896523 = 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

0.011563039 = product of:
  0.023126079 = sum of:
    0.023126079 = product of:
      0.046252158 = sum of:
        0.046252158 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046252158 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19924192 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056896523 = 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

Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004) 0.01
```
0.008165345 = product of:
  0.01633069 = sum of:
    0.01633069 = product of:
      0.06532276 = sum of:
        0.06532276 = weight(_text_:authors in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06532276 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25938067 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.056896523 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, 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.

Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Themes