Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=3428,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3428, 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=3428)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Based on the principles of the h-index, I propose a new measure, the w-index, as a particularly simple and more useful way to assess the substantial impact of a researcher's work, especially regarding excellent papers. The w-index can be defined as follows: If w of a researcher's papers have at least 10w citations each and the other papers have fewer than 10(w+1) citations, that researcher's w-index is w. The results demonstrate that there are noticeable differences between the w-index and the h-index, because the w-index plays close attention to the more widely cited papers. These discrepancies can be measured by comparing the ranks of 20 astrophysicists, a few famous physical scientists, and 16 Price medalists. Furthermore, I put forward the w(q)-index to improve the discriminatory power of the w-index and to rank scientists with the same w. The factor q is the least number of citations a researcher with w needed to reach w+1. In terms of both simplicity and accuracy, the w-index or w(q)-index can be widely used for evaluation of scientists, journals, conferences, scientific topics, research institutions, and so on.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=617,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 617, 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=617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study undertook an exploratory analysis of the relationship between the body of scientific literature associated with HIV/AIDS and the trajectory of the epidemic, measured by the rate of new cases diagnosed annually in the United States for the period covering 1981 to 2009. The body of scientific literature examined in this investigation was constituted from scientific research that developed alongside the epidemic and was extracted from MEDLINE, a bibliographic database of the United States. National Library of Medicine. Content analysis methods were employed for qualitative data reduction, and regression analysis was used to assess whether variation in the trajectory of the epidemic co-occurred with variation in the publication of specific genres of content within the scientific literature relating to HIV/AIDS. The regression model confirmed a statistically significant association between the representative body of HIV/AIDS scientific literature and the epidemic trajectory, and identified three research categories, namely, ameliorative drug treatments, other clinical protocols, and health education, as being most significantly associated with the epidemic trajectory. Implicit in the findings of this study are areas of scientific research that are of functional and practical interest to clinicians, policy makers, the lay public, and contributors to the body of scientific literature.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 4259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=4259,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4259, 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=4259)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study compares the 45 "Best Paper" award articles with nonaward articles published in the Journal of Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) to observe the differences in citations. The results show that, in most cases, the citations of the award articles are more numerous than the median, belonging to the Top-50% stratum. Only 15.6% of the award articles have the status of being the most-cited article of the year in which the article was published; 24.4% belong to the Top-5% stratum of the publication year; 44.4% belong to the Top-10% stratum of the publication year; and 73.3% belong to the Top-25% stratum of the publication year. Surprisingly, from 2000 to 2012, none of the award articles made it to the Top-10% stratum, apart from the year 2004; the least-cited award article received only three citations during a 5-year period. The results show a wide range of citations among the Best JASIST Papers. This study also observes that the number of articles changed little from 1969 to 1995 but grew rapidly from 1996 to 2012. Suggestions for possible ways to better meet the challenges of the journal's growth in size and scope in selecting award articles are provided.

Type

a