Search (74 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. 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) 0.04 
    0.041786816 = product of:
  0.08357363 = sum of:
    0.08357363 = sum of:
      0.04668439 = weight(_text_:t in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04668439 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04537884 = queryNorm
          0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
      0.03688924 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03688924 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15890898 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04537884 = 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)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:11:29
  2. Ntuli, H.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Chang, T.; Pouris, A.: Does research output cause economic growth or vice versa? : evidence from 34 OECD countries (2015) 0.04 
    0.041786816 = product of:
  0.08357363 = sum of:
    0.08357363 = sum of:
      0.04668439 = weight(_text_:t in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04668439 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04537884 = queryNorm
          0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
      0.03688924 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03688924 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15890898 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04537884 = 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)
    Date
    8. 7.2015 22:00:42
  3. Schubert, T.; Michels, C.: Placing articles in the large publisher nations : is there a "free lunch" in terms of higher impact? (2013) 0.03 
    0.03482235 = product of:
  0.0696447 = sum of:
    0.0696447 = sum of:
      0.03890366 = weight(_text_:t in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03890366 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04537884 = queryNorm
          0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
      0.030741034 = weight(_text_:22 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030741034 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15890898 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04537884 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:45:49
  4. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.03 
    0.03482235 = product of:
  0.0696447 = sum of:
    0.0696447 = sum of:
      0.03890366 = weight(_text_:t in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03890366 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04537884 = queryNorm
          0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
      0.030741034 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030741034 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15890898 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04537884 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  5. Ye, F.Y.: ¬A theoretical approach to the unification of informetric models by wave-heat equations (2011) 0.02 
    0.022007234 = product of:
  0.04401447 = sum of:
    0.04401447 = product of:
      0.08802894 = sum of:
        0.08802894 = weight(_text_:t in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08802894 = score(doc=4464,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.49242607 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A simple distribution function f(x, t)=p(x+q)**-ße**alpha*t obeys wave and heat equations, that constructs a theoretical approach to the unification of informetric models, with which we can unify all informetric laws. While its space-type distributions deduce naturally Lotka-type laws in size approaches and Zipf-type laws in rank approaches, its time-type distributions introduce the mechanism of Price-type and Brookes-type laws.
  6. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬The Hirsch index of a shifted Lotka function and its relation with the impact factor (2012) 0.02 
    0.01925633 = product of:
  0.03851266 = sum of:
    0.03851266 = product of:
      0.07702532 = sum of:
        0.07702532 = weight(_text_:t in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07702532 = score(doc=243,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.4308728 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.
  7. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02 
    0.01844462 = product of:
  0.03688924 = sum of:
    0.03688924 = product of:
      0.07377848 = sum of:
        0.07377848 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07377848 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15890898 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  8. Khan, G.F.; Park, H.W.: Measuring the triple helix on the web : longitudinal trends in the university-industry-government relationship in Korea (2011) 0.01 
    0.013754521 = product of:
  0.027509041 = sum of:
    0.027509041 = product of:
      0.055018082 = sum of:
        0.055018082 = weight(_text_:t in 4944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055018082 = score(doc=4944,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.3077663 = fieldWeight in 4944, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study examines longitudinal trends in the university-industry-government (UIG) relationship on the web in the Korean context by using triple helix (TH) indicators. The study considers various Internet resources, including websites/documents, blogs, online cafes, Knowledge-In (comparable to Yahoo! Answers), and online news sites, by employing webometric and co-word analysis techniques to ascertain longitudinal trends in the UIG relationship, which have received considerable attention in the last decade. The results indicate that the UIG relationship varied according to the government's policies and that there was some tension in the longitudinal UIG relationship. Further, websites/documents and blogs were the most reliable sources for examining the strength of and variations in the bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships on the web. In addition, web-based T(uig) values showed a stronger trilateral relationship and larger variations in the UIG relationship than Science Citation Index-based T(uig) values. The results suggest that various Internet resources (e.g., advanced search engines, websites/documents, blogs, and online cafes), together with TH indicators, can be used to explore the UIG relationship on the web.
  9. Scholarly metrics under the microscope : from citation analysis to academic auditing (2015) 0.01 
    0.012296414 = product of:
  0.024592828 = sum of:
    0.024592828 = product of:
      0.049185656 = sum of:
        0.049185656 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049185656 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15890898 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2017 17:12:50
  10. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.01 
    0.012296414 = product of:
  0.024592828 = sum of:
    0.024592828 = product of:
      0.049185656 = sum of:
        0.049185656 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049185656 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15890898 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  11. Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016) 0.01 
    0.012296414 = product of:
  0.024592828 = sum of:
    0.024592828 = product of:
      0.049185656 = sum of:
        0.049185656 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049185656 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15890898 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2019 11:22:31
  12. Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010) 0.01 
    0.011671098 = product of:
  0.023342196 = sum of:
    0.023342196 = product of:
      0.04668439 = sum of:
        0.04668439 = weight(_text_:t in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04668439 = score(doc=3418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  13. West, J.; Bergstrom, T.; Bergstrom, C.T.: Big Macs and Eigenfactor scores : don't let correlation coefficients fool you (2010) 0.01 
    0.011671098 = product of:
  0.023342196 = sum of:
    0.023342196 = product of:
      0.04668439 = sum of:
        0.04668439 = weight(_text_:t in 3982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04668439 = score(doc=3982,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 3982, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3982)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  14. Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T.: Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations (2010) 0.01 
    0.011671098 = product of:
  0.023342196 = sum of:
    0.023342196 = product of:
      0.04668439 = sum of:
        0.04668439 = weight(_text_:t in 4107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04668439 = score(doc=4107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 4107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  15. Bouyssou, D.; Marchant, T.: Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner (2011) 0.01 
    0.011671098 = product of:
  0.023342196 = sum of:
    0.023342196 = product of:
      0.04668439 = sum of:
        0.04668439 = weight(_text_:t in 4751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04668439 = score(doc=4751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 4751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  16. Heinze, T.; Heidler, R.; Heiberger, R.H.; Riebling, J.: New patterns of scientific growth : how research expanded after the invention of scanning tunneling microscopy and the discovery of Buckminsterfullerenes (2013) 0.01 
    0.011671098 = product of:
  0.023342196 = sum of:
    0.023342196 = product of:
      0.04668439 = sum of:
        0.04668439 = weight(_text_:t in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04668439 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 688, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  17. Leydesdorff, L.; Opthof, T.: Citation analysis with medical subject Headings (MeSH) using the Web of Knowledge : a new routine (2013) 0.01 
    0.011671098 = product of:
  0.023342196 = sum of:
    0.023342196 = product of:
      0.04668439 = sum of:
        0.04668439 = weight(_text_:t in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04668439 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  18. Song, M.; Kim, S.Y.; Zhang, G.; Ding, Y.; Chambers, T.: Productivity and influence in bioinformatics : a bibliometric analysis using PubMed central (2014) 0.01 
    0.011671098 = product of:
  0.023342196 = sum of:
    0.023342196 = product of:
      0.04668439 = sum of:
        0.04668439 = weight(_text_:t in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04668439 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  19. Tavakolizadeh-Ravari, M.: Analysis of the long term dynamics in thesaurus developments and its consequences (2017) 0.01 
    0.011003617 = product of:
  0.022007234 = sum of:
    0.022007234 = product of:
      0.04401447 = sum of:
        0.04401447 = weight(_text_:t in 3081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04401447 = score(doc=3081,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17876579 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.24621303 = fieldWeight in 3081, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3081)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Die Arbeit analysiert die dynamische Entwicklung und den Gebrauch von Thesaurusbegriffen. Zusätzlich konzentriert sie sich auf die Faktoren, die die Zahl von Indexbegriffen pro Dokument oder Zeitschrift beeinflussen. Als Untersuchungsobjekt dienten der MeSH und die entsprechende Datenbank "MEDLINE". Die wichtigsten Konsequenzen sind: 1. Der MeSH-Thesaurus hat sich durch drei unterschiedliche Phasen jeweils logarithmisch entwickelt. Solch einen Thesaurus sollte folgenden Gleichung folgen: "T = 3.076,6 Ln (d) - 22.695 + 0,0039d" (T = Begriffe, Ln = natürlicher Logarithmus und d = Dokumente). Um solch einen Thesaurus zu konstruieren, muss man demnach etwa 1.600 Dokumente von unterschiedlichen Themen des Bereiches des Thesaurus haben. Die dynamische Entwicklung von Thesauri wie MeSH erfordert die Einführung eines neuen Begriffs pro Indexierung von 256 neuen Dokumenten. 2. Die Verteilung der Thesaurusbegriffe erbrachte drei Kategorien: starke, normale und selten verwendete Headings. Die letzte Gruppe ist in einer Testphase, während in der ersten und zweiten Kategorie die neu hinzukommenden Deskriptoren zu einem Thesauruswachstum führen. 3. Es gibt ein logarithmisches Verhältnis zwischen der Zahl von Index-Begriffen pro Aufsatz und dessen Seitenzahl für die Artikeln zwischen einer und einundzwanzig Seiten. 4. Zeitschriftenaufsätze, die in MEDLINE mit Abstracts erscheinen erhalten fast zwei Deskriptoren mehr. 5. Die Findablity der nicht-englisch sprachigen Dokumente in MEDLINE ist geringer als die englische Dokumente. 6. Aufsätze der Zeitschriften mit einem Impact Factor 0 bis fünfzehn erhalten nicht mehr Indexbegriffe als die der anderen von MEDINE erfassten Zeitschriften. 7. In einem Indexierungssystem haben unterschiedliche Zeitschriften mehr oder weniger Gewicht in ihrem Findability. Die Verteilung der Indexbegriffe pro Seite hat gezeigt, dass es bei MEDLINE drei Kategorien der Publikationen gibt. Außerdem gibt es wenige stark bevorzugten Zeitschriften."
  20. Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014) 0.01 
    0.010868597 = product of:
  0.021737194 = sum of:
    0.021737194 = product of:
      0.043474387 = sum of:
        0.043474387 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043474387 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15890898 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04537884 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.

Authors

Types

  • a 71
  • m 2
  • el 1
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications