Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Tijssen, R.J.W."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Waltman, L.; Calero-Medina, C.; Kosten, J.; Noyons, E.C.M.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van; Visser, M.S.; Wouters, P.: ¬The Leiden ranking 2011/2012 : data collection, indicators, and interpretation (2012) 0.01 
    0.014686662 = product of:
  0.044059984 = sum of:
    0.044059984 = weight(_text_:based in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044059984 = score(doc=514,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.28829288 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.
  2. Winnink, J.J.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Raan, F.J. van: Theory-changing breakthroughs in science : the impact of research teamwork on scientific discoveries (2016) 0.01 
    0.010175217 = product of:
  0.03052565 = sum of:
    0.03052565 = weight(_text_:based in 2898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03052565 = score(doc=2898,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 2898, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2898)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    We have developed and tested an evidence-based method for early-stage identification of scientific discoveries. Scholarly publications are analyzed to track and trace breakthrough processes as well as their impact on world science. The focus in this study is on the incremental discovery of the ubiquitin-mediated proteolytic system in the late 1970s by a small international team of collaborating researchers. Analysis of their groundbreaking research articles, all produced within a relatively short period of time, and the network of citing articles shows the cumulative effects of the intense collaboration within a small group of researchers working on the same subject. Using bibliographic data from the Web of Science database and the PATSTAT patents database in combination with expert opinions shows that these discoveries accumulated into a new technology. These first findings suggest that potential breakthrough discoveries can be identified at a relatively early stage by careful analysis of publication and citation patterns.

Authors