Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.040482726 = sum of:
  0.032949466 = product of:
    0.13179787 = sum of:
      0.13179787 = weight(_text_:authors in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13179787 = score(doc=5205,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.25179064 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05523161 = 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)
  0.0075332597 = product of:
    0.02259978 = sum of:
      0.02259978 = weight(_text_:h in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02259978 = score(doc=5205,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13722013 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05523161 = queryNorm
          0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.03846982 = product of:
  0.07693964 = sum of:
    0.07693964 = product of:
      0.115409456 = sum of:
        0.05082521 = weight(_text_:c in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05082521 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1905162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
        0.06458425 = weight(_text_:h in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06458425 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13722013 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.

Object

h-index

0.03833588 = sum of:
  0.028358385 = product of:
    0.11343354 = sum of:
      0.11343354 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11343354 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.25179064 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05523161 = 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)
  0.009977494 = product of:
    0.029932482 = sum of:
      0.029932482 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029932482 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19341168 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05523161 = 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)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.019220524 = product of:
  0.038441047 = sum of:
    0.038441047 = product of:
      0.15376419 = sum of:
        0.15376419 = weight(_text_:authors in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15376419 = score(doc=2765,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25179064 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Beginning with a short review of Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals, we focus on PLOS ONE and more specifically the contributions of Chinese authors to this journal. It is shown that their contribution is growing exponentially. In 2013 almost one fifth of all publications in this journal had at least one Chinese author. The average number of citations per publication is approximately the same for articles with a Chinese author and for articles without any Chinese coauthor. Using the odds-ratio, we could not find arguments that Chinese authors in PLOS ONE excessively cite other Chinese contributions.

0.016474733 = product of:
  0.032949466 = sum of:
    0.032949466 = product of:
      0.13179787 = sum of:
        0.13179787 = weight(_text_:authors in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13179787 = score(doc=4384,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25179064 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = 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)
  0.5 = 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

0.013451563 = product of:
  0.026903126 = sum of:
    0.026903126 = product of:
      0.107612506 = sum of:
        0.107612506 = weight(_text_:authors in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107612506 = score(doc=1764,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25179064 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to provide a new insight into the reasons why authors cite. Design/methodology/approach The authors argue that, based on philosophical ideas about the essence of things, pure rational thinking about the role of citations leads to the answer. Findings - Citations originate from the interestingness of the investigated phenomenon. The essence of citation lies in the interaction between different ideas or perspectives on a phenomenon addressed in the citing as well as in the cited articles. Research limitations/implications - The findings only apply to ethical (not whimsical or self-serving) citations. As such citations reflect interactions of scientific ideas, they can reveal the evolution of science, revive the cognitive process of an investigated scientific phenomenon and reveal political and economic factors influencing the development of science. Originality/value - This article is the first to propose interestingness and the interaction of ideas as the basic reason for citing. This view on citations allows reverse engineering from citations to ideas and hence becomes useful for science policy.

0.012471868 = product of:
  0.024943735 = sum of:
    0.024943735 = product of:
      0.0748312 = sum of:
        0.0748312 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0748312 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19341168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

0.011229921 = product of:
  0.022459842 = sum of:
    0.022459842 = product of:
      0.06737953 = sum of:
        0.06737953 = weight(_text_:h in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06737953 = score(doc=695,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13722013 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An h-type index is proposed which depends on the obtained citations of articles belonging to the h-core. This weighted h-index, denoted as hw, is presented in a continuous setting and in a discrete one. It is shown that in a continuous setting the new index enjoys many good properties. In the discrete setting some small deviations from the ideal may occur.

Object

h-index

0.011229921 = product of:
  0.022459842 = sum of:
    0.022459842 = product of:
      0.06737953 = sum of:
        0.06737953 = weight(_text_:h in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06737953 = score(doc=2351,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13722013 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A time-dependent h-type indicator is proposed. This indicator depends on the size of the h-core, the number of citations received, and recent change in the value of the h-index. As such, it tries to combine in a dynamic way older information about the source (e.g., a scientist or research institute that is evaluated) with recent information.

Object

h-index

0.010764042 = product of:
  0.021528084 = sum of:
    0.021528084 = product of:
      0.06458425 = sum of:
        0.06458425 = weight(_text_:h in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06458425 = score(doc=2717,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13722013 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Temporal growth of the h-index in a diachronous cumulative time series is predicted to be linear by Hirsch (2005), whereas other models predict a concave increase. Actual data generally yield a linear growth or S-shaped growth. We study the h-index's growth in computer simulations of the publication-citation process. In most simulations the h-index grows linearly in time. Only occasionally does an S-shape occur, while in our simulations a concave increase is very rare. The latter is often signalled by the occurrence of plateaus - periods of h-index stagnation. Several parameters and their influence on the h-index's growth are determined and discussed.

0.0095116915 = product of:
  0.019023383 = sum of:
    0.019023383 = product of:
      0.07609353 = sum of:
        0.07609353 = weight(_text_:authors in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07609353 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25179064 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0095116915 = product of:
  0.019023383 = sum of:
    0.019023383 = product of:
      0.07609353 = sum of:
        0.07609353 = weight(_text_:authors in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07609353 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25179064 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to introduce a general framework for the analysis of knowledge integration and diffusion using bibliometric data. Design/methodology/approach - The authors propose that in order to characterise knowledge integration and diffusion of a given issue (the source, for example articles on a topic or by an organisation, etc.), one has to choose a set of elements from the source (the intermediary set, for example references, keywords, etc.). This set can then be classified into categories (cats), thus making it possible to investigate its diversity. The set can also be characterised according to the coherence of a network associated to it. Findings - This framework allows a methodology to be developed to assess knowledge integration and diffusion. Such methodologies can be useful for a number of science policy issues, including the assessment of interdisciplinarity in research and dynamics of research networks. Originality/value - The main contribution of this article is to provide a simple and easy to use generalisation of an existing approach to study interdisciplinarity, bringing knowledge integration and knowledge diffusion together in one framework.

0.00792641 = product of:
  0.01585282 = sum of:
    0.01585282 = product of:
      0.06341128 = sum of:
        0.06341128 = weight(_text_:authors in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06341128 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25179064 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = 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.

0.00792641 = product of:
  0.01585282 = sum of:
    0.01585282 = product of:
      0.06341128 = sum of:
        0.06341128 = weight(_text_:authors in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06341128 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25179064 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5226, 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=5226)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aims to inform researchers about metrics so that they become aware of the evaluative techniques being applied to their scientific output. Understanding these concepts will help them during their funding initiatives, and in hiring and tenure. The book not only describes what indicators do (or are designed to do, which is not always the same thing), but also gives precise mathematical formulae so that indicators can be properly understood and evaluated. Metrics have become a critical issue in science, with widespread international discussion taking place on the subject across scientific journals and organizations. As researchers should know the publication-citation context, the mathematical formulae of indicators being used by evaluating committees and their consequences, and how such indicators might be misused, this book provides an ideal tome on the topic. Provides researchers with a detailed understanding of bibliometric indicators and their applications. Empowers researchers looking to understand the indicators relevant to their work and careers. Presents an informed and rounded picture of bibliometrics, including the strengths and shortcomings of particular indicators. Supplies the mathematics behind bibliometric indicators so they can be properly understood. Written by authors with longstanding expertise who are considered global leaders in the field of bibliometrics

0.0075332597 = product of:
  0.015066519 = sum of:
    0.015066519 = product of:
      0.04519956 = sum of:
        0.04519956 = weight(_text_:h in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04519956 = score(doc=2638,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13722013 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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.

Object

h-index

0.00748312 = product of:
  0.01496624 = sum of:
    0.01496624 = product of:
      0.04489872 = sum of:
        0.04489872 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04489872 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19341168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.00748312 = product of:
  0.01496624 = sum of:
    0.01496624 = product of:
      0.04489872 = sum of:
        0.04489872 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04489872 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19341168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:26:24

0.0072607445 = product of:
  0.014521489 = sum of:
    0.014521489 = product of:
      0.043564465 = sum of:
        0.043564465 = weight(_text_:c in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043564465 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1905162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0071024257 = product of:
  0.014204851 = sum of:
    0.014204851 = product of:
      0.042614553 = sum of:
        0.042614553 = weight(_text_:h in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042614553 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13722013 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.31055614 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

h-index

0.0053268196 = product of:
  0.010653639 = sum of:
    0.010653639 = product of:
      0.031960916 = sum of:
        0.031960916 = weight(_text_:h in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031960916 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13722013 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05523161 = queryNorm
            0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contrary to what one might expect, Nobel laureates and Fields medalists have a rather large fraction (10% or more) of uncited publications. This is the case for (in total) 75 examined researchers from the fields of mathematics (Fields medalists), physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine (Nobel laureates). We study several indicators for these researchers, including the h-index, total number of publications, average number of citations per publication, the number (and fraction) of uncited publications, and their interrelations. The most remarkable result is a positive correlation between the h-index and the number of uncited articles. We also present a Lotkaian model, which partially explains the empirically found regularities.