Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
editor's%3a%22Association for computing machinery%22 1
editor's%3a%22Association for computing macheiner%22 1
editores%3a%22Association for computing machinery%22 1
editores%3a%22Association for computing macheiner%22 1
editors%3a%22Association for computing machinery%22 1

Sanderson, M.: Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics (2008) 0.00
```
0.0039062058 = product of:
  0.015624823 = sum of:
    0.015624823 = weight(_text_:for in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015624823 = score(doc=1867,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.17601961 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
```
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.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1184-1190