-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.06
0.062952645 = sum of:
0.027235774 = product of:
0.1089431 = sum of:
0.1089431 = weight(_text_:authors in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1089431 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.035716873 = sum of:
0.0069693136 = weight(_text_:a in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0069693136 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.02874756 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02874756 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Yan, S.; Rousseau, R.; Huang, S.: Contributions of chinese authors in PLOS ONE (2016)
0.04
0.0416429 = sum of:
0.036919296 = product of:
0.14767718 = sum of:
0.14767718 = weight(_text_:authors in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14767718 = score(doc=2765,freq=6.0), product of:
0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.004723606 = product of:
0.009447212 = sum of:
0.009447212 = weight(_text_:a in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009447212 = score(doc=2765,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
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.
- Type
- a
-
Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012)
0.04
0.039830416 = product of:
0.07966083 = sum of:
0.07966083 = sum of:
0.0077919285 = weight(_text_:a in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0077919285 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
0.071868904 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071868904 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 14. 2.2012 12:53:22
- Type
- a
-
Kretschmer, H.; Rousseau, R.: Author inflation leads to a breakdown of Lotka's law : in and out of context (2001)
0.04
0.037829764 = sum of:
0.03164511 = product of:
0.12658045 = sum of:
0.12658045 = weight(_text_:authors in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12658045 = score(doc=5205,freq=6.0), product of:
0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.0061846524 = product of:
0.012369305 = sum of:
0.012369305 = weight(_text_:a in 5205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012369305 = score(doc=5205,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 5205, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5205)
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.
- Type
- a
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000)
0.03
0.034950946 = sum of:
0.03164511 = product of:
0.12658045 = sum of:
0.12658045 = weight(_text_:authors in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12658045 = score(doc=4384,freq=6.0), product of:
0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.0033058354 = product of:
0.006611671 = sum of:
0.006611671 = weight(_text_:a in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006611671 = score(doc=4384,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, 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
- Type
- a
-
Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Interestingness and the essence of citation : Thomas Reid and bibliographic description (2013)
0.03
0.02988693 = sum of:
0.025838124 = product of:
0.103352495 = sum of:
0.103352495 = weight(_text_:authors in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.103352495 = score(doc=1764,freq=4.0), product of:
0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.004048805 = product of:
0.00809761 = sum of:
0.00809761 = weight(_text_:a in 1764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00809761 = score(doc=1764,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1764, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1764)
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.
- Type
- a
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996)
0.03
0.028573405 = product of:
0.05714681 = sum of:
0.05714681 = sum of:
0.014025472 = weight(_text_:a in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014025472 = score(doc=7659,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043121338 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
- Type
- a
-
Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006)
0.03
0.026235826 = product of:
0.052471653 = sum of:
0.052471653 = sum of:
0.009350315 = weight(_text_:a in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009350315 = score(doc=5270,freq=8.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
0.043121338 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043121338 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1857552 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
- Abstract
- The age distribution of a country's scientists is an important element in the study of its research capacity. In this article we investigate the age distribution of Japanese scientists in order to find out whether major events such as World War II had an appreciable effect on its features. Data have been obtained from population censuses taken in Japan from 1970 to 1995. A comparison with the situation in China and the United States has been made. We find that the group of scientific researchers outside academia is dominated by the young: those younger than age 35. The personnel group in higher education, on the other hand, is dominated by the baby boomers: those who were born after World War II. Contrary to the Chinese situation we could not find any influence of major nondemographic events. The only influence we found was the increase in enrollment of university students after World War II caused by the reform of the Japanese university system. Female participation in the scientific and university systems in Japan, though still low, is increasing.
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:26:24
- Type
- a
-
Liu, Y.; Rafols, I.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A framework for knowledge integration and diffusion (2012)
0.03
0.025662385 = sum of:
0.018270312 = product of:
0.07308125 = sum of:
0.07308125 = weight(_text_:authors in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07308125 = score(doc=297,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.007392073 = product of:
0.014784146 = sum of:
0.014784146 = weight(_text_:a in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014784146 = score(doc=297,freq=20.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.24171482 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
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.
- Type
- a
-
Rousseau, S.; Rousseau, R.: Interactions between journal attributes and authors' willingness to wait for editorial decisions (2012)
0.03
0.025283048 = sum of:
0.018270312 = product of:
0.07308125 = sum of:
0.07308125 = weight(_text_:authors in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07308125 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.007012736 = product of:
0.014025472 = sum of:
0.014025472 = weight(_text_:a in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014025472 = score(doc=250,freq=18.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this article, we report on a discrete choice experiment to determine the willingness-to-wait (WTW) in the context of journal submissions. Respondents to our survey are mostly active in the information sciences, including librarians. Besides WTW, other attributes included in the study are the quality of the editorial board, the quality of referee reports, the probability of being accepted, the ISI impact factor, and the standing of the journal among peers. Interaction effects originating from scientists' personal characteristics (age, region of origin, motivations to publish) with the WTW are highlighted. A difference was made between submitting a high quality article and a standard article. Among the interesting results obtained from our analysis we mention that for a high-quality article, researchers are willing to wait some 18 months longer for a journal with an ISI impact factor above 2 than for a journal without an impact factor, keeping all other factors constant. For a standard article, the WTW decreases to some 8 months. Gender had no effect on our conclusions.
- Type
- a
-
Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004)
0.02
0.020734986 = sum of:
0.0152252605 = product of:
0.060901042 = sum of:
0.060901042 = weight(_text_:authors in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060901042 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.005509726 = product of:
0.011019452 = sum of:
0.011019452 = weight(_text_:a in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011019452 = score(doc=2266,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
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.
- Type
- a
-
Rousseau, R.; Egghe, L.; Guns, R.: Becoming metric-wise : a bibliometric guide for researchers (2018)
0.02
0.018599264 = sum of:
0.0152252605 = product of:
0.060901042 = sum of:
0.060901042 = weight(_text_:authors in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060901042 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24182312 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = 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)
0.0033740045 = product of:
0.006748009 = sum of:
0.006748009 = weight(_text_:a in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006748009 = score(doc=5226,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
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
-
Rousseau, R.: Bradford curves (1994)
0.00
0.0046751574 = product of:
0.009350315 = sum of:
0.009350315 = product of:
0.01870063 = sum of:
0.01870063 = weight(_text_:a in 7304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01870063 = score(doc=7304,freq=8.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.30574775 = fieldWeight in 7304, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7304)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- It is shown that generalized Leimkuhler functions give proper fits to a large variety of Bradford curves, including those exhibited a so-called Groos droop or a rising tail
- Type
- a
-
Rousseau, R.: ¬A table for estimating the exponent in Lotka's law (1993)
0.00
0.0044077807 = product of:
0.008815561 = sum of:
0.008815561 = product of:
0.017631123 = sum of:
0.017631123 = weight(_text_:a in 5653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017631123 = score(doc=5653,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 5653, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5653)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Rousseau, R.: Use of an existing thesaurus in a knowledge based indexing and retrieval system (1991)
0.00
0.004048805 = product of:
0.00809761 = sum of:
0.00809761 = product of:
0.01619522 = sum of:
0.01619522 = weight(_text_:a in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01619522 = score(doc=3007,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A simple heuristic method is proposed to use an existing thesaurus for weighted indexing
- Type
- a
-
Rousseau, R.; Ye, F.Y.: ¬A proposal for a dynamic h-type index (2008)
0.00
0.00381725 = product of:
0.0076345 = sum of:
0.0076345 = product of:
0.015269 = sum of:
0.015269 = weight(_text_:a in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015269 = score(doc=2351,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
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.
- Type
- a
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Topological aspects of information retrieval (1998)
0.00
0.0036077136 = product of:
0.0072154272 = sum of:
0.0072154272 = product of:
0.0144308545 = sum of:
0.0144308545 = weight(_text_:a in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0144308545 = score(doc=2157,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Let (DS, DQ, sim) be a retrieval system consisting of a document space DS, a query space QS, and a function sim, expressing the similarity between a document and a query. Following D.M. Everett and S.C. Cater (1992), we introduce topologies on the document space. These topologies are generated by the similarity function sim and the query space QS. 3 topologies will be studied: the retrieval topology, the similarity topology and the (pseudo-)metric one. It is shown that the retrieval topology is the coarsest of the three, while the (pseudo-)metric is the strongest. These 3 topologies are generally different, reflecting distinct topological aspects of information retrieval. We present necessary and sufficient conditions for these topological aspects to be equal
- Type
- a
-
Egghe, L.; Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A relation between h-index and impact factor in the power-law model (2009)
0.00
0.0034846568 = product of:
0.0069693136 = sum of:
0.0069693136 = product of:
0.013938627 = sum of:
0.013938627 = weight(_text_:a in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013938627 = score(doc=6759,freq=10.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Using a power-law model, the two best-known topics in citation analysis, namely the impact factor and the Hirsch index, are unified into one relation (not a function). The validity of our model is, at least in a qualitative way, confirmed by real data.
- Type
- a
-
Rousseau, R.: Citation data as a proxy for quality or scientific influence are at best PAC (probably approximately correct) (2016)
0.00
0.0034846568 = product of:
0.0069693136 = sum of:
0.0069693136 = product of:
0.013938627 = sum of:
0.013938627 = weight(_text_:a in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013938627 = score(doc=3210,freq=10.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 3210, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3210)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this communication I give a brief introduction to Valiant's probably approximately correct (PAC) theory, provide an extension that goes beyond Valiant's ideas (and beyond the domain for which this theory was meant), and come to an interpretation in terms of research evaluation. As such, PAC provides a framework for a theory of research evaluation.
- Type
- a
-
Rousseau, R.: Egghe's g-index is not a proper concentration measure (2015)
0.00
0.0033058354 = product of:
0.006611671 = sum of:
0.006611671 = product of:
0.013223342 = sum of:
0.013223342 = weight(_text_:a in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013223342 = score(doc=1864,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06116359 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.053045183 = queryNorm
0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
