Sanderson, M.: Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics (2008)
0.04
0.035095815 = product of:
0.087739535 = sum of:
0.07611368 = weight(_text_:index in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07611368 = score(doc=1867,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
0.011625858 = product of:
0.034877572 = sum of:
0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034877572 = score(doc=1867,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- A brief communication appearing in this journal ranked UK-based LIS and (some) IR academics by their h-index using data derived from the Thomson ISI Web of Science(TM) (WoS). In this brief communication, the same academics were re-ranked, using other popular citation databases. It was found that for academics who publish more in computer science forums, their h was significantly different due to highly cited papers missed by WoS; consequently, their rank changed substantially. The study was widened to a broader set of UK-based LIS and IR academics in which results showed similar statistically significant differences. A variant of h, hmx, was introduced that allowed a ranking of the academics using all citation databases together.
- Date
- 1. 6.2008 12:29:25
- Object
- h-index
