-
Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010)
0.07
0.06938817 = product of:
0.13877635 = sum of:
0.13877635 = sum of:
0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09743616 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041340183 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Author research impact was examined based on citer analysis (the number of citers as opposed to the number of citations) for 90 highly cited authors grouped into three broad subject areas. Citer-based outcome measures were also compared with more traditional citation-based measures for levels of association. The authors found that there are significant differences in citer-based outcomes among the three broad subject areas examined and that there is a high degree of correlation between citer and citation-based measures for all measures compared, except for two outcomes calculated for the social sciences. Citer-based measures do produce slightly different rankings of authors based on citer counts when compared to more traditional citation counts. Examples are provided. Citation measures may not adequately address the influence, or reach, of an author because citations usually do not address the origin of the citation beyond self-citations.
- Date
- 28. 9.2010 12:54:22
-
Heneberg, P.: Supposedly uncited articles of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists can be prevalently attributed to the errors of omission and commission (2013)
0.06
0.05782348 = product of:
0.11564696 = sum of:
0.11564696 = sum of:
0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08119681 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 660, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=660)
0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034450155 = score(doc=660,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 660, 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=660)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Several independent authors reported a high share of uncited publications, which include those produced by top scientists. This share was repeatedly reported to exceed 10% of the total papers produced, without any explanation of this phenomenon and the lack of difference in uncitedness between average and successful researchers. In this report, we analyze the uncitedness among two independent groups of highly visible scientists (mathematicians represented by Fields medalists, and researchers in physiology or medicine represented by Nobel Prize laureates in the respective field). Analysis of both groups led to the identical conclusion: over 90% of the uncited database records of highly visible scientists can be explained by the inclusion of editorial materials progress reports presented at international meetings (meeting abstracts), discussion items (letters to the editor, discussion), personalia (biographic items), and by errors of omission and commission of the Web of Science (WoS) database and of the citing documents. Only a marginal amount of original articles and reviews were found to be uncited (0.9 and 0.3%, respectively), which is in strong contrast with the previously reported data, which never addressed the document types among the uncited records.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:21:46
-
Waltman, L.; Costas, R.: F1000 Recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation : a comparison with citations (2014)
0.02
0.02435904 = product of:
0.04871808 = sum of:
0.04871808 = product of:
0.09743616 = sum of:
0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09743616 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- F1000 is a postpublication peer review service for biological and medical research. F1000 recommends important publications in the biomedical literature, and from this perspective F1000 could be an interesting tool for research evaluation. By linking the complete database of F1000 recommendations to the Web of Science bibliographic database, we are able to make a comprehensive comparison between F1000 recommendations and citations. We find that about 2% of the publications in the biomedical literature receive at least one F1000 recommendation. Recommended publications on average receive 1.30 recommendations, and more than 90% of the recommendations are given within half a year after a publication has appeared. There turns out to be a clear correlation between F1000 recommendations and citations. However, the correlation is relatively weak, at least weaker than the correlation between journal impact and citations. More research is needed to identify the main reasons for differences between recommendations and citations in assessing the impact of publications.
-
Pislyakov, V.; Shukshina, E.: Measuring excellence in Russia : highly cited papers, leading institutions, patterns of national and international collaboration (2014)
0.02
0.02435904 = product of:
0.04871808 = sum of:
0.04871808 = product of:
0.09743616 = sum of:
0.09743616 = weight(_text_:90 in 1533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09743616 = score(doc=1533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.3563897 = fieldWeight in 1533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1533)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this study, we discover Russian "centers of excellence" and explore patterns of their collaboration with each other and with foreign partners. Highly cited papers serve as a proxy for "excellence" and coauthored papers as a measure of collaborative efforts. We find that currently research institutes (of the Russian Academy of Sciences as well as others) remain the key players despite recent government initiatives to stimulate university science. The contribution of the commercial sector to high-impact research is negligible. More than 90% of Russian highly cited papers involve international collaboration, and Russian institutions often do not play a dominant role. Partnership with U.S., German, U.K., and French scientists increases markedly the probability of a Russian paper becoming highly cited. Patterns of national ("intranational") collaboration in world-class research differ significantly across different types of organizations; the strongest ties are between three nuclear/particle physics centers. Finally, we draw a coauthorship map to visualize collaboration between Russian centers of excellence.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.02
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = product of:
0.08268037 = sum of:
0.08268037 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08268037 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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
-
Onodera, N.; Iwasawa, M.; Midorikawa, N.; Yoshikane, F.; Amano, K.; Ootani, Y.; Kodama, T.; Kiyama, Y.; Tsunoda, H.; Yamazaki, S.: ¬A method for eliminating articles by homonymous authors from the large number of articles retrieved by author search (2011)
0.02
0.020299202 = product of:
0.040598404 = sum of:
0.040598404 = product of:
0.08119681 = sum of:
0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 4370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08119681 = score(doc=4370,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 4370, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4370)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper proposes a methodology which discriminates the articles by the target authors ("true" articles) from those by other homonymous authors ("false" articles). Author name searches for 2,595 "source" authors in six subject fields retrieved about 629,000 articles. In order to extract true articles from the large amount of the retrieved articles, including many false ones, two filtering stages were applied. At the first stage any retrieved article was eliminated as false if either its affiliation addresses had little similarity to those of its source article or there was no citation relationship between the journal of the retrieved article and that of its source article. At the second stage, a sample of retrieved articles was subjected to manual judgment, and utilizing the judgment results, discrimination functions based on logistic regression were defined. These discrimination functions demonstrated both the recall ratio and the precision of about 95% and the accuracy (correct answer ratio) of 90-95%. Existence of common coauthor(s), address similarity, title words similarity, and interjournal citation relationships between the retrieved and source articles were found to be the effective discrimination predictors. Whether or not the source author was from a specific country was also one of the important predictors. Furthermore, it was shown that a retrieved article is almost certainly true if it was cited by, or cocited with, its source article. The method proposed in this study would be effective when dealing with a large number of articles whose subject fields and affiliation addresses vary widely.
-
Shema, H.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Thelwall, M.: How is research blogged? : A content analysis approach (2015)
0.02
0.020299202 = product of:
0.040598404 = sum of:
0.040598404 = product of:
0.08119681 = sum of:
0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 1863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08119681 = score(doc=1863,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 1863, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1863)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Blogs that cite academic articles have emerged as a potential source of alternative impact metrics for the visibility of the blogged articles. Nevertheless, to evaluate more fully the value of blog citations, it is necessary to investigate whether research blogs focus on particular types of articles or give new perspectives on scientific discourse. Therefore, we studied the characteristics of peer-reviewed references in blogs and the typical content of blog posts to gain insight into bloggers' motivations. The sample consisted of 391 blog posts from 2010 to 2012 in Researchblogging.org's health category. The bloggers mostly cited recent research articles or reviews from top multidisciplinary and general medical journals. Using content analysis methods, we created a general classification scheme for blog post content with 10 major topic categories, each with several subcategories. The results suggest that health research bloggers rarely self-cite and that the vast majority of their blog posts (90%) include a general discussion of the issue covered in the article, with more than one quarter providing health-related advice based on the article(s) covered. These factors suggest a genuine attempt to engage with a wider, nonacademic audience. Nevertheless, almost 30% of the posts included some criticism of the issues being discussed.
-
Scholarly metrics under the microscope : from citation analysis to academic auditing (2015)
0.01
0.013780061 = product of:
0.027560122 = sum of:
0.027560122 = product of:
0.055120245 = sum of:
0.055120245 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055120245 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.013780061 = product of:
0.027560122 = sum of:
0.027560122 = product of:
0.055120245 = sum of:
0.055120245 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055120245 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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
-
Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016)
0.01
0.013780061 = product of:
0.027560122 = sum of:
0.027560122 = product of:
0.055120245 = sum of:
0.055120245 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055120245 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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
-
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
0.012179969 = product of:
0.024359938 = sum of:
0.024359938 = product of:
0.048719876 = sum of:
0.048719876 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048719876 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = 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.
-
Yan, E.: Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines (2014)
0.01
0.012179969 = product of:
0.024359938 = sum of:
0.024359938 = product of:
0.048719876 = sum of:
0.048719876 = weight(_text_:22 in 1534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048719876 = score(doc=1534,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1534, 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=1534)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26.10.2014 20:22:22
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.01
0.012179969 = product of:
0.024359938 = sum of:
0.024359938 = product of:
0.048719876 = sum of:
0.048719876 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048719876 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, 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=2590)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
-
Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011)
0.01
0.012057554 = product of:
0.024115108 = sum of:
0.024115108 = product of:
0.048230216 = sum of:
0.048230216 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048230216 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:53:00
-
Ding, Y.: Applying weighted PageRank to author citation networks (2011)
0.01
0.012057554 = product of:
0.024115108 = sum of:
0.024115108 = product of:
0.048230216 = sum of:
0.048230216 = weight(_text_:22 in 4188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048230216 = score(doc=4188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4188)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:02:21
-
Vieira, E.S.; Cabral, J.A.S.; Gomes, J.A.N.F.: Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions (2014)
0.01
0.012057554 = product of:
0.024115108 = sum of:
0.024115108 = product of:
0.048230216 = sum of:
0.048230216 = weight(_text_:22 in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048230216 = score(doc=1221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1221, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1221)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 18:22:21
-
Albarrán, P.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: References made and citations received by scientific articles (2011)
0.01
0.010335046 = product of:
0.020670092 = sum of:
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041340183 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article studies massive evidence about references made and citations received after a 5-year citation window by 3.7 million articles published in 1998 to 2002 in 22 scientific fields. We find that the distributions of references made and citations received share a number of basic features across sciences. Reference distributions are rather skewed to the right while citation distributions are even more highly skewed: The mean is about 20 percentage points to the right of the median, and articles with a remarkable or an outstanding number of citations represent about 9% of the total. Moreover, the existence of a power law representing the upper tail of citation distributions cannot be rejected in 17 fields whose articles represent 74.7% of the total. Contrary to the evidence in other contexts, the value of the scale parameter is above 3.5 in 13 of the 17 cases. Finally, power laws are typically small, but capture a considerable proportion of the total citations received.
-
D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011)
0.01
0.010335046 = product of:
0.020670092 = sum of:
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041340183 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:06:52
-
Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011)
0.01
0.010335046 = product of:
0.020670092 = sum of:
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041340183 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:21:28
-
Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The ripple effect : citation chain reactions of a nobel prize (2013)
0.01
0.010335046 = product of:
0.020670092 = sum of:
0.020670092 = product of:
0.041340183 = sum of:
0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041340183 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050854117 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 16:21:09
