-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.04
0.04231755 = product of:
0.0846351 = sum of:
0.0846351 = sum of:
0.0095056575 = weight(_text_:a in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0095056575 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.044131473 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044131473 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030997967 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 19:22:13
- Object
- h-index
- Type
- a
-
Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007)
0.04
0.0410829 = product of:
0.0821658 = sum of:
0.0821658 = sum of:
0.007604526 = weight(_text_:a in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007604526 = score(doc=1144,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
0.02496453 = weight(_text_:h in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02496453 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
0.049596746 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049596746 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 30.12.2007 11:22:39
- Type
- a
-
Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008)
0.04
0.03872454 = product of:
0.07744908 = sum of:
0.07744908 = sum of:
0.008232141 = weight(_text_:a in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008232141 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
0.038218975 = weight(_text_:h in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038218975 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.3361869 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030997967 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
- Object
- h-index
- Type
- a
-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.04
0.036649305 = product of:
0.07329861 = sum of:
0.07329861 = product of:
0.10994791 = sum of:
0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010754423 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
0.09919349 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09919349 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
- Type
- a
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.04
0.036649305 = product of:
0.07329861 = sum of:
0.07329861 = product of:
0.10994791 = sum of:
0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010754423 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.09919349 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09919349 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
- Type
- a
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.04
0.036649305 = product of:
0.07329861 = sum of:
0.07329861 = product of:
0.10994791 = sum of:
0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010754423 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.09919349 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09919349 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
- Type
- a
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.03
0.03336741 = product of:
0.06673482 = sum of:
0.06673482 = product of:
0.10010222 = sum of:
0.013307921 = weight(_text_:a in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013307921 = score(doc=6902,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.0867943 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0867943 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
- Type
- a
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990)
0.03
0.03336741 = product of:
0.06673482 = sum of:
0.06673482 = product of:
0.10010222 = sum of:
0.013307921 = weight(_text_:a in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013307921 = score(doc=4689,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.0867943 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0867943 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:55
- Type
- a
-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.03
0.033295516 = product of:
0.06659103 = sum of:
0.06659103 = sum of:
0.010670074 = weight(_text_:a in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010670074 = score(doc=1350,freq=14.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018723397 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03719756 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:12:35
- Type
- a
-
Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998)
0.03
0.03310583 = product of:
0.06621166 = sum of:
0.06621166 = product of:
0.09931749 = sum of:
0.011642005 = weight(_text_:a in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011642005 = score(doc=3690,freq=6.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
0.08767549 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08767549 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Derives a 'literature variable exponential growth model' from Price's literature growth model. The research shows that the new model is more convincing than the former ones. Gives detailed calculation procedure, examples, parameter values and mean square errors
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:22:35
- Type
- a
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.03
0.03146567 = product of:
0.06293134 = sum of:
0.06293134 = product of:
0.094397 = sum of:
0.0067215143 = weight(_text_:a in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0067215143 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.08767549 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08767549 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
- Type
- a
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.03
0.03145308 = product of:
0.06290616 = sum of:
0.06290616 = sum of:
0.006985203 = weight(_text_:a in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006985203 = score(doc=201,freq=6.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018723397 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03719756 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Research patterns could enhance understanding of the Information Systems (IS) field. Citation analysis is the methodology commonly used to determine such research patterns. In this study, the citation methodology is applied to one of the top-ranked Information Systems conferences - International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). Information is extracted from papers in the proceedings of ICIS 2000 to 2002. A total of 145 base articles and 4,226 citations are used. Research patterns are obtained using total citations, citations per journal or conference, and overlapping citations. We then provide the citation ranking of journals and conferences. We also examine the difference between the citation ranking in this study and the ranking of IS journals and IS conferences in other studies. Based on the comparison, we confirm that IS research is a multidisciplinary research area. We also identify the most cited papers and authors in the IS research area, and the organizations most active in producing papers in the top-rated IS conference. We discuss the findings and implications of the study.
- Date
- 3. 1.2007 17:22:03
- Type
- a
-
Ntuli, H.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Chang, T.; Pouris, A.: Does research output cause economic growth or vice versa? : evidence from 34 OECD countries (2015)
0.03
0.03145308 = product of:
0.06290616 = sum of:
0.06290616 = sum of:
0.006985203 = weight(_text_:a in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006985203 = score(doc=2132,freq=6.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018723397 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03719756 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The causal relation between research and economic growth is of particular importance for political support of science and technology as well as for academic purposes. This article revisits the causal relationship between research articles published and economic growth in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for the period 1981-2011, using bootstrap panel causality analysis, which accounts for cross-section dependency and heterogeneity across countries. The article, by the use of the specific method and the choice of the country group, makes a contribution to the existing literature. Our empirical results support unidirectional causality running from research output (in terms of total number of articles published) to economic growth for the US, Finland, Hungary, and Mexico; the opposite causality from economic growth to research articles published for Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, the UK, Austria, Israel, and Poland; and no causality for the rest of the countries. Our findings provide important policy implications for research policies and strategies for OECD countries.
- Date
- 8. 7.2015 22:00:42
- Type
- a
-
Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014)
0.03
0.030812176 = product of:
0.061624352 = sum of:
0.061624352 = sum of:
0.0057033943 = weight(_text_:a in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0057033943 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018723397 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03719756 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:11:29
- Type
- a
-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.03
0.02748698 = product of:
0.05497396 = sum of:
0.05497396 = product of:
0.08246094 = sum of:
0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008065818 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.07439512 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07439512 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
- Type
- a
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.03
0.02748698 = product of:
0.05497396 = sum of:
0.05497396 = product of:
0.08246094 = sum of:
0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008065818 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.07439512 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07439512 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Type
- a
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Liu, J.S.: ¬A new approach for main path analysis : decay in knowledge diffusion (2016)
0.03
0.027416471 = product of:
0.054832943 = sum of:
0.054832943 = sum of:
0.008232141 = weight(_text_:a in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008232141 = score(doc=2649,freq=12.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015602832 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030997967 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Main path analysis is a powerful tool for extracting the backbones of a directed network and has been applied widely in bibliometric studies. In contrast to the no-decay assumption in the traditional approach, this study proposes a novel technique by assuming that the strength of knowledge decays when knowledge contained in one document is passed on to another document down the citation chain. We propose three decay models, arithmetic decay, geometric decay, and harmonic decay, along with their theoretical properties. In general, results of the proposed decay models depend largely on the local structure of a citation network as opposed to the global structure in the traditional approach. Thus, the significance of citation links and the associated documents that are overemphasized by the global structure in the traditional no-decay approach is treated more properly. For example, the traditional approach commonly assigns high value to documents that heavily reference others, such as review articles. Specifically in the geometric and harmonic decay models, only truly significant review articles will be included in the resulting main paths. We demonstrate this new approach and its properties through the DNA literature citation network.
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:23:00
- Type
- a
-
Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023)
0.03
0.027416471 = product of:
0.054832943 = sum of:
0.054832943 = sum of:
0.008232141 = weight(_text_:a in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008232141 = score(doc=916,freq=12.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015602832 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030997967 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:02
- Type
- a
-
Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012)
0.03
0.0262109 = product of:
0.0524218 = sum of:
0.0524218 = sum of:
0.0058210026 = weight(_text_:a in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0058210026 = score(doc=4959,freq=6.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015602832 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030997967 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
- Type
- a
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007)
0.02
0.02410163 = product of:
0.04820326 = sum of:
0.04820326 = product of:
0.07230489 = sum of:
0.0105208345 = weight(_text_:a in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0105208345 = score(doc=477,freq=10.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.06178406 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06178406 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Jorge Hirsch recently proposed the h index to quantify the research output of individual scientists. The new index has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific community. The claim that the h index in a single number provides a good representation of the scientific lifetime achievement of a scientist as well as the (supposed) simple calculation of the h index using common literature databases lead to the danger of improper use of the index. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the h index and summarize the studies on the convergent validity of this index. We also introduce corrections and complements as well as single-number alternatives to the h index.
- Object
- H-Index
- Type
- a
