So, C.Y.K.: Citation ranking versus expert judgement in evaluating communication scholars : effects of research specialty size and individual prominence (1998)
0.03
0.027978165 = product of:
0.16786899 = sum of:
0.16786899 = weight(_text_:ranking in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16786899 = score(doc=327,freq=6.0), product of:
0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.828085 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Numerous attempts have been made to validate the use of citations as an evaluation method by comparing it with peer review. Unlike past studies using journals, research articles or universities as the subject matter, the present study extends the comparison to the ranking of individual scholars. Results show that citation ranking and expert judgement of communication scholars are highly correlated. The citation methods and the expert judgement method are found to work better in smaller research areas and yield more valid evaluation results for more prominent scholars
