Search (270 results, page 14 of 14)

0.0039061487 = product of:
  0.0078122974 = sum of:
    0.0078122974 = product of:
      0.015624595 = sum of:
        0.015624595 = weight(_text_:h in 5328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015624595 = score(doc=5328,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 5328, 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=5328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0039061487 = product of:
  0.0078122974 = sum of:
    0.0078122974 = product of:
      0.015624595 = sum of:
        0.015624595 = weight(_text_:h in 646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015624595 = score(doc=646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 646, 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=646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0039061487 = product of:
  0.0078122974 = sum of:
    0.0078122974 = product of:
      0.015624595 = sum of:
        0.015624595 = weight(_text_:h in 847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015624595 = score(doc=847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 847, 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=847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigates scholars' citation behaviors from a fine-grained perspective. Specifically, each scholarly citation is considered multidimensional rather than logically unidimensional (i.e., present or absent). Thirty million articles from PubMed were accessed for use in empirical research, in which a total of 15 interpretable features of scholarly citations were constructed and grouped into three main categories. Each category corresponds to one aspect of the reasons and motivations behind scholars' citation decision-making during academic writing. Using about 500,000 pairs of actual and randomly generated scholarly citations, a series of Random Forest-based classification experiments were conducted to quantitatively evaluate the correlation between each constructed citation feature and citation decisions made by scholars. Our experimental results indicate that citation proximity is the category most relevant to scholars' citation decision-making, followed by citation authority and citation inertia. However, big-name scholars whose h-indexes rank among the top 1% exhibit a unique pattern of citation behaviors-their citation decision-making correlates most closely with citation inertia, with the correlation nearly three times as strong as that of their ordinary counterparts. Hopefully, the empirical findings presented in this paper can bring us closer to characterizing and understanding the complex process of generating scholarly citations in academia.

0.0039061487 = product of:
  0.0078122974 = sum of:
    0.0078122974 = product of:
      0.015624595 = sum of:
        0.015624595 = weight(_text_:h in 1204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015624595 = score(doc=1204,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 1204, 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=1204)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0031249188 = product of:
  0.0062498376 = sum of:
    0.0062498376 = product of:
      0.012499675 = sum of:
        0.012499675 = weight(_text_:h in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012499675 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.385-389

0.0031249188 = product of:
  0.0062498376 = sum of:
    0.0062498376 = product of:
      0.012499675 = sum of:
        0.012499675 = weight(_text_:h in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012499675 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.427-432

0.0031249188 = product of:
  0.0062498376 = sum of:
    0.0062498376 = product of:
      0.012499675 = sum of:
        0.012499675 = weight(_text_:h in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012499675 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0031249188 = product of:
  0.0062498376 = sum of:
    0.0062498376 = product of:
      0.012499675 = sum of:
        0.012499675 = weight(_text_:h in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012499675 = score(doc=2707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0031249188 = product of:
  0.0062498376 = sum of:
    0.0062498376 = product of:
      0.012499675 = sum of:
        0.012499675 = weight(_text_:h in 3585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012499675 = score(doc=3585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 3585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIS 61(2010) no.1, S.205-207 (Jeppe Nicolaisen) Weitere Rez. in: Mitt VÖB 63(2010) H.1/2, S.134-135 (J. Gorraiz u. M. Wieland): "Das Buch entwickelte sich aus einem mehrjährigen Forschungsprojekt mit dem Ziel, den schwer verständlichen quantitativen Kern der Bibliometrie in einem für primär italienische Bibliothekare leichteren historischen und philosophischen Kontext zu vermitteln, wie der Autor im Vorwort erklärt. Dank einer Empfehlung von Eugene Garfield steht dieses Werk nun auch in englischer Übersetzung einer internationalen Leserschaft zur Verfügung. Die über 400 Seiten lange Monografie von de Bellis gibt in acht Kapiteln einen detaillierten und sehr präzisen Überblick über die Bibliometrie und die Zitationsanalyse, ihre Natur und Entwicklung, ihre Kontroverse und Prognose. . . . Das Buch von de Bellis ist sehr empfehlenswert für alle die beabsichtigen, sich mit dieser neuen Wissenschaft zu beschäftigen. Es endet mit folgendem Statement: "Scientometricians have to learn to live in a multidimensional world". Und genau hier liegt die Herausforderung und Schönheit dieses Metiers."

0.0031249188 = product of:
  0.0062498376 = sum of:
    0.0062498376 = product of:
      0.012499675 = sum of:
        0.012499675 = weight(_text_:h in 3805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012499675 = score(doc=3805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 3805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The research evaluation market is booming. "Ranking," "metrics," "h-index," and "impact factors" are reigning buzzwords. Government and research administrators want to evaluate everything -- teachers, professors, training programs, universities -- using quantitative indicators. Among the tools used to measure "research excellence," bibliometrics -- aggregate data on publications and citations -- has become dominant. Bibliometrics is hailed as an "objective" measure of research quality, a quantitative measure more useful than "subjective" and intuitive evaluation methods such as peer review that have been used since scientific papers were first published in the seventeenth century. In this book, Yves Gingras offers a spirited argument against an unquestioning reliance on bibliometrics as an indicator of research quality. Gingras shows that bibliometric rankings have no real scientific validity, rarely measuring what they pretend to. Although the study of publication and citation patterns, at the proper scales, can yield insights on the global dynamics of science over time, ill-defined quantitative indicators often generate perverse and unintended effects on the direction of research. Moreover, abuse of bibliometrics occurs when data is manipulated to boost rankings. Gingras looks at the politics of evaluation and argues that using numbers can be a way to control scientists and diminish their autonomy in the evaluation process. Proposing precise criteria for establishing the validity of indicators at a given scale of analysis, Gingras questions why universities are so eager to let invalid indicators influence their research strategy.