Search (1269 results, page 2 of 64)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Introduction to informetrics : quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science (1990) 0.02 
    0.016912865 = product of:
  0.062013835 = sum of:
    0.022529786 = weight(_text_:r in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022529786 = score(doc=1515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=1515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
    0.037053622 = weight(_text_:k in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037053622 = score(doc=1515,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.39044446 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Classification
    BCGS (FH K)
    GHBS
    BCGS (FH K)
    Pages
    XI,450 S
  2. Rousseau, R.; Jin, B.: ¬The age-dependent h-type AR**2-index : basic properties and a case study (2008) 0.02 
    0.016731145 = product of:
  0.046010647 = sum of:
    0.010877941 = product of:
      0.021755882 = sum of:
        0.021755882 = weight(_text_:h in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021755882 = score(doc=2638,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0057392623 = weight(_text_:a in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057392623 = score(doc=2638,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
    0.027310224 = weight(_text_:r in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027310224 = score(doc=2638,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 2638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=2638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2638, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2638)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Hirsch-type indices are studied with special attention to the AR**2-index introduced by Jin. The article consists of two parts: a theoretical part and a practical illustration. In the theoretical part, we recall the definition of the AR**2-index and show that an alternative definition, the so-called AR**2,1, does not have the properties expected for this type of index. A practical example shows the existence of some of these mathematical properties and illustrates the difference between different h-type indices. Clearly the h-index itself is the most robust of all. It is shown that excluding so-called non-WoS source articles may have a significant influence on the R-and, especially, the g-index.
    Object
    h-index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.14, S.2305-2311
    Type
    a
  3. Arencibia-Jorge, R.; Barrios-Almaguer, I.; Fernández-Hernández, S.; Carvajal-Espino, R.: Applying successive H indices in the institutional evaluation : a case study (2008) 0.02 
    0.016661955 = product of:
  0.045820374 = sum of:
    0.010877941 = product of:
      0.021755882 = sum of:
        0.021755882 = weight(_text_:h in 1348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021755882 = score(doc=1348,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 1348, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1348)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 1348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=1348,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1348, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1348)
    0.027310224 = weight(_text_:r in 1348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027310224 = score(doc=1348,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 1348, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1348)
    0.00294612 = weight(_text_:s in 1348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00294612 = score(doc=1348,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 1348, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1348)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    The present work shows the applying of successive H indices in the evaluation of a scientific institution, using the researcher-department-institution hierarchy as level of aggregation. The scientific production covered by the Web of Science of the researcher's staff from the Cuban National Scientific Research Center, during the period 2001-2005, was studied. The Hirsch index (h-index; J.E. Hirsch, 2005) was employed to calculate the individual performance of the staff, using the g-index created by Leo Egghe (2006) and the A-index developed by Jin Bi-Hui (2006) as complementary indicators. The successive H indices proposed by András Schubert (2007) were used to determine the scientific performance of each department as well as the general performance of the institution. The possible advantages of the method for the institutional evaluation processes were exposed.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.1, S.155-157
    Type
    a
  4. Egghe, L.; Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A relation between h-index and impact factor in the power-law model (2009) 0.02 
    0.016642686 = product of:
  0.045767386 = sum of:
    0.010255822 = product of:
      0.020511644 = sum of:
        0.020511644 = weight(_text_:h in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020511644 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.31055614 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0069856085 = weight(_text_:a in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0069856085 = score(doc=6759,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
    0.025748327 = weight(_text_:r in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025748327 = score(doc=6759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=6759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Using a power-law model, the two best-known topics in citation analysis, namely the impact factor and the Hirsch index, are unified into one relation (not a function). The validity of our model is, at least in a qualitative way, confirmed by real data.
    Object
    h-index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.11, S.2362-2365
    Type
    a
  5. Shi, D.; Rousseau, R.; Yang, L.; Li, J.: ¬A journal's impact factor is influenced by changes in publication delays of citing journals (2017) 0.02 
    0.016556118 = product of:
  0.04552932 = sum of:
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=3441,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
    0.018895645 = weight(_text_:u in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018895645 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    In this article we describe another problem with journal impact factors by showing that one journal's impact factor is dependent on other journals' publication delays. The proposed theoretical model predicts a monotonically decreasing function of the impact factor as a function of publication delay, on condition that the citation curve of the journal is monotone increasing during the publication window used in the calculation of the journal impact factor; otherwise, this function has a reversed U shape. Our findings based on simulations are verified by examining three journals in the information sciences: the Journal of Informetrics, Scientometrics, and the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.780-789
    Type
    a
  6. ¬The Web of knowledge : Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (2000) 0.02 
    0.016512679 = product of:
  0.060546488 = sum of:
    0.009064952 = product of:
      0.018129904 = sum of:
        0.018129904 = weight(_text_:h in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018129904 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.006944071 = weight(_text_:s in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006944071 = score(doc=461,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.24024783 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
    0.044537462 = weight(_text_:u in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044537462 = score(doc=461,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.5116319 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Editor
    Cronin, B. u. H.B. Atkins
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 28(2001) no.1, S.45-46 (M.J. López Huertas u. E. Jiménez-Contreras); Password 2002, H.3, S.14-19 (W.G. Stock)
    Pages
    564 S
    Type
    s
  7. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.02 
    0.016431153 = product of:
  0.036148533 = sum of:
    0.004532476 = product of:
      0.009064952 = sum of:
        0.009064952 = weight(_text_:h in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009064952 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=916,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = 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)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
    0.009004618 = product of:
      0.018009236 = sum of:
        0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018009236 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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)
  0.45454547 = coord(5/11)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.402-414
    Type
    a
  8. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬The Hirsch index of a shifted Lotka function and its relation with the impact factor (2012) 0.02 
    0.01613425 = product of:
  0.04436919 = sum of:
    0.0155431535 = product of:
      0.031086307 = sum of:
        0.031086307 = weight(_text_:h in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031086307 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.003865826 = weight(_text_:a in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003865826 = score(doc=243,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
    0.022529786 = weight(_text_:r in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022529786 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    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.
    Object
    h-index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.5, S.1048-1053
    Type
    a
  9. Chang, K.-C.; Zhou, W.; Zhang, S.; Yuan, C,-C.: Threshold effects of the patent H-index in the relationship between patent citations and market value (2015) 0.02 
    0.015987609 = product of:
  0.04396592 = sum of:
    0.013322704 = product of:
      0.026645407 = sum of:
        0.026645407 = weight(_text_:h in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026645407 = score(doc=2344,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 2344, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2344)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=2344,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2344, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2344)
    0.00294612 = weight(_text_:s in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00294612 = score(doc=2344,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 2344, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2344)
    0.022457888 = weight(_text_:k in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022457888 = score(doc=2344,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 2344, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2344)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    This study employs a panel threshold regression model to test whether the patent h-index has a threshold effect on the relationship between patent citations and market value in the pharmaceutical industry. It aims to bridge the gap in extant research on this topic. This study demonstrates that the patent h-index has a triple threshold effect on the relationship between patent citations and market value. When the patent h-index is less than or equal to the lowest threshold, 4, there is a positive relationship between patent citations and market value. This study indicates that the first regime (where the patent h-index is less than or equal to 4) is optimal, because this is where the extent of the positive relationship between patent citations and market value is the greatest.
    Object
    h-index
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2697-2703
    Type
    a
  10. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.02 
    0.01586198 = product of:
  0.043620445 = sum of:
    0.0034928042 = weight(_text_:a in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034928042 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.031535134 = weight(_text_:r in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031535134 = score(doc=5171,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.358346 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.007203694 = product of:
      0.014407388 = sum of:
        0.014407388 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014407388 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
    Type
    a
  11. Rousseau, S.; Rousseau, R.: Metric-wiseness (2015) 0.02 
    0.015654806 = product of:
  0.057400957 = sum of:
    0.005467103 = weight(_text_:a in 6069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005467103 = score(doc=6069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6069)
    0.045059573 = weight(_text_:r in 6069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045059573 = score(doc=6069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 6069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6069)
    0.00687428 = weight(_text_:s in 6069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00687428 = score(doc=6069,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.23783323 = fieldWeight in 6069, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6069)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2389
    Type
    a
  12. Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.: Thoughts on uncitedness : Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies (2011) 0.02 
    0.015503381 = product of:
  0.042634297 = sum of:
    0.0076918663 = product of:
      0.0153837325 = sum of:
        0.0153837325 = weight(_text_:h in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0153837325 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=4994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
    0.027310224 = weight(_text_:r in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027310224 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
    0.00294612 = weight(_text_:s in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00294612 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Contrary to what one might expect, Nobel laureates and Fields medalists have a rather large fraction (10% or more) of uncited publications. This is the case for (in total) 75 examined researchers from the fields of mathematics (Fields medalists), physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine (Nobel laureates). We study several indicators for these researchers, including the h-index, total number of publications, average number of citations per publication, the number (and fraction) of uncited publications, and their interrelations. The most remarkable result is a positive correlation between the h-index and the number of uncited articles. We also present a Lotkaian model, which partially explains the empirically found regularities.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Erratum. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1637-1644
    Type
    a
  13. Mulkay, M.J.: Sociology of the scientific research community (1977) 0.02 
    0.01545882 = product of:
  0.05668234 = sum of:
    0.007731652 = weight(_text_:a in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007731652 = score(doc=284,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 284, 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=284)
    0.0048608496 = weight(_text_:s in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048608496 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
    0.04408984 = weight(_text_:u in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04408984 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.50648975 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Pages
    S.93-148
    Source
    Science, technology and society: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Ed: I. Spiegel-Rosing u. D. de Solla Price
    Type
    a
  14. Stvilia, B.; Hinnant, C.C.; Schindler, K.; Worrall, A.; Burnett, G.; Burnett, K.; Kazmer, M.M.; Marty, P.F.: Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab (2011) 0.02 
    0.015269175 = product of:
  0.04199023 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=4191,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
    0.026466874 = weight(_text_:k in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026466874 = score(doc=4191,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2788889 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
    0.009004618 = product of:
      0.018009236 = sum of:
        0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018009236 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    The production of scientific knowledge has evolved from a process of inquiry largely based on the activities of individual scientists to one grounded in the collaborative efforts of specialized research teams. This shift brings to light a new question: how the composition of scientific teams affects their production of knowledge. This study employs data from 1,415 experiments conducted at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) between 2005 and 2008 to identify and select a sample of 89 teams and examine whether team diversity and network characteristics affect productivity. The study examines how the diversity of science teams along several variables affects overall team productivity. Results indicate several diversity measures associated with network position and team productivity. Teams with mixed institutional associations were more central to the overall network compared with teams that primarily comprised NHMFL's own scientists. Team cohesion was positively related to productivity. The study indicates that high productivity in teams is associated with high disciplinary diversity and low seniority diversity of team membership. Finally, an increase in the share of senior members negatively affects productivity, and teams with members in central structural positions perform better than other teams.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:19:42
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.270-283
    Type
    a
  15. Schwens, U.: Feasibility of exploiting bibliometric data in European national bibliographic databases (1999) 0.01 
    0.014841216 = product of:
  0.05441779 = sum of:
    0.005467103 = weight(_text_:a in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005467103 = score(doc=3792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
    0.0048608496 = weight(_text_:s in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048608496 = score(doc=3792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
    0.04408984 = weight(_text_:u in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04408984 = score(doc=3792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.50648975 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Source
    International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 28(1999) no.3, S.76-77
    Type
    a
  16. Liang, L.: R-Sequences : relative indicators for the rhythm of science (2005) 0.01 
    0.014717404 = product of:
  0.053963814 = sum of:
    0.005467103 = weight(_text_:a in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005467103 = score(doc=3877,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
    0.045059573 = weight(_text_:r in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045059573 = score(doc=3877,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
    0.00343714 = weight(_text_:s in 3877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00343714 = score(doc=3877,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 3877, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3877)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Like most activities in the world, scientific evolution has its own rhythm. How can this evolutionary rhythm be described and made visible? Do different fields have different rhythms, and how can they be measured? In order to answer these questions a relative indicator, called R-sequence, was designed. This indicator is time dependent, derived from publication and citation data, but independent of the absolute number of publications, as weIl as the absolute number of citations, and can therefore be used in a comparison of different scientific fields, nations, Institutes, or journals. Two caiculation methods of the R-sequence-the triangle method and the parallelogram method-are introduced. As a case study JASIS(T)'s R-sequence has been obtained.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.10, S.1045-1049
    Type
    a
  17. Botting, N.; Dipper, L.; Hilari, K.: ¬The effect of social media promotion on academic article uptake (2017) 0.01 
    0.01470862 = product of:
  0.040448703 = sum of:
    0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 3522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039050733 = score(doc=3522,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3522, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3522)
    0.016092705 = weight(_text_:r in 3522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016092705 = score(doc=3522,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 3522, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3522)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3522,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3522, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3522)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 3522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=3522,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 3522, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3522)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    Important emerging measures of academic impact are article download and citation rates. Yet little is known about the influences on these and ways in which academics might manage this approach to dissemination. Three groups of papers by academics in a center for speech-language-science (available through a university repository) were compared. The first group of target papers were blogged, and the blogs were systematically tweeted. The second group of connected control papers were nonblogged papers that we carefully matched for author, topic, and year of publication. The third group were papers by different staff members on a variety of topics-Unrelated Control Papers. The results suggest an effect of social media on download rate, which was limited not just to Target Papers but also generalized to Connected Control Papers. Unrelated Control Papers showed no increase over the same amount of time (main effect of time, F(1,27)?=?55.6, p?<?.001); Significant Group×Time Interaction, F(2,27)?=?7.9, p?=?.002). The effect on citation rates was less clear but followed the same trend. The only predictor of the 2015 citation rate was downloads after blogging (r?=?0.450, p?=?.012). These preliminary results suggest that promotion of academic articles via social media may enhance download and citation rate and that this has implications for impact strategies.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.795-800
    Type
    a
  18. Abbasi, M. K.; Frommholz, I.: Cluster-based polyrepresentation as science modelling approach for information retrieval (2015) 0.01 
    0.014664084 = product of:
  0.053768307 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 1691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=1691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1691, 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=1691)
    0.0041664424 = weight(_text_:s in 1691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041664424 = score(doc=1691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 1691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1691)
    0.044915777 = weight(_text_:k in 1691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044915777 = score(doc=1691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.47329018 = fieldWeight in 1691, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1691)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Source
    Scientometrics. 102(2015) no.3, S.2301-2322
    Type
    a
  19. Egghe, L.; Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: Fundamental properties of rhythm sequences (2008) 0.01 
    0.014618838 = product of:
  0.053602405 = sum of:
    0.006112407 = weight(_text_:a in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006112407 = score(doc=1965,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1965, 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=1965)
    0.045059573 = weight(_text_:r in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045059573 = score(doc=1965,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    Fundamental mathematical properties of rhythm sequences are studied. In particular, a set of three axioms for valid rhythm indicators is proposed, and it is shown that the R-indicator satisfies only two out of three but that the R-indicator satisfies all three. This fills a critical, logical gap in the study of these indicator sequences. Matrices leading to a constant R-sequence are called baseline matrices. They are characterized as matrices with constant w-year diachronous impact factors. The relation with classical impact factors is clarified. Using regression analysis matrices with a rhythm sequence that is on average equal to 1 (smaller than 1, larger than 1) are characterized.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1469-1478
    Type
    a
  20. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.D.: Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? (2009) 0.01 
    0.014600756 = product of:
  0.040152077 = sum of:
    0.010134924 = product of:
      0.020269848 = sum of:
        0.020269848 = weight(_text_:h in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020269848 = score(doc=2861,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.30689526 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0055226083 = weight(_text_:a in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055226083 = score(doc=2861,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2861, 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=2861)
    0.022758523 = weight(_text_:r in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022758523 = score(doc=2861,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs number of publications (for the quantity dimension) and total citation counts (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between number of publications and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between total citation counts and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.
    Object
    h-Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1286-1289
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 1230
  • m 18
  • s 17
  • el 15
  • b 2
  • r 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications