Search (484 results, page 2 of 25)

0.020583114 = product of:
  0.051457785 = sum of:
    0.02897019 = product of:
      0.05794038 = sum of:
        0.05794038 = weight(_text_:l in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05794038 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.022487596 = product of:
      0.04497519 = sum of:
        0.04497519 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04497519 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:05:18

0.020488268 = product of:
  0.05122067 = sum of:
    0.029493032 = weight(_text_:u in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029493032 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494254 = 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)
    0.02172764 = product of:
      0.04345528 = sum of:
        0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04345528 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.020270959 = product of:
  0.050677396 = sum of:
    0.010004795 = product of:
      0.02000959 = sum of:
        0.02000959 = weight(_text_:h in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02000959 = score(doc=2847,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.1940976 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0406726 = product of:
      0.0813452 = sum of:
        0.0813452 = weight(_text_:lee in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0813452 = score(doc=2847,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24718519 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.32908607 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Participating in scholarly events (e.g., conferences, workshops, etc.) as an elite-group member such as an organizing committee chair or member, program committee chair or member, session chair, invited speaker, or award winner is beneficial to a researcher's career development. The objective of this study is to investigate whether elite-group membership for scholarly events is representative of scholars' prominence, and which elite group is the most prestigious. We collected data about 15 global (excluding regional) bioinformatics scholarly events held in 2007. We sampled (via stratified random sampling) participants from elite groups in each event. Then, bibliometric indicators (total citations and h index) of seven elite groups and a non-elite group, consisting of authors who submitted at least one paper to an event but were not included in any elite group, were observed using the Scopus Citation Tracker. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to examine the differences among the eight groups. Multiple comparison tests (Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner) were conducted as follow-up procedures. The experimental results reveal that scholars in an elite group have better performance in bibliometric indicators than do others. Among the elite groups, the invited speaker group has statistically significantly the best performance while the other elite-group types are not significantly distinguishable. From this analysis, we confirm that elite-group membership in scholarly events, at least in the field of bioinformatics, can be utilized as an alternative marker for a scholar's prominence, with invited speaker being the most important prominence indicator among the elite groups.

0.019843703 = product of:
  0.09921851 = sum of:
    0.09921851 = sum of:
      0.048520677 = weight(_text_:h in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048520677 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = 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)
      0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050697833 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.01942933 = product of:
  0.097146645 = sum of:
    0.097146645 = sum of:
      0.053691365 = weight(_text_:h in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053691365 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.5208185 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04345528 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis), the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.

Object

h-index

0.01903729 = product of:
  0.04759322 = sum of:
    0.030727526 = product of:
      0.061455052 = sum of:
        0.061455052 = weight(_text_:l in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061455052 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.37262368 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016865695 = product of:
      0.03373139 = sum of:
        0.03373139 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373139 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

0.01899819 = product of:
  0.094990954 = sum of:
    0.094990954 = sum of:
      0.044293117 = weight(_text_:h in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044293117 = score(doc=1881,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.42965335 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
      0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050697833 = score(doc=1881,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In a previous article, we introduced a general transformation on sources and one on items in an arbitrary information production process (IPP). In this article, we investigate the influence of these transformations on the h-index and on the g-index. General formulae that describe this influence are presented. These are applied to the case that the size-frequency function is Lotkaian (i.e., is a decreasing power function). We further show that the h-index of the transformed IPP belongs to the interval bounded by the two transformations of the h-index of the original IPP, and we also show that this property is not true for the g-index.

Object

h-index

0.018543491 = product of:
  0.046358727 = sum of:
    0.029493032 = weight(_text_:u in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029493032 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494254 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 2758, 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=2758)
    0.016865695 = product of:
      0.03373139 = sum of:
        0.03373139 = weight(_text_:22 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373139 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2758, 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=2758)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:03:12

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Costas, R., M. Bordons u. T.N. van Leeuwen u.a.: Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.740-753.

0.018295659 = product of:
  0.091478296 = sum of:
    0.091478296 = sum of:
      0.048023015 = weight(_text_:h in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048023015 = score(doc=1878,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04345528 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.

Object

h-index

0.018246343 = product of:
  0.09123172 = sum of:
    0.09123172 = sum of:
      0.04001918 = weight(_text_:h in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04001918 = score(doc=4217,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
      0.05121254 = weight(_text_:l in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05121254 = score(doc=4217,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang's h-sequences are above the "normal" ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author.

Object

h-index

0.017445477 = product of:
  0.08722738 = sum of:
    0.08722738 = sum of:
      0.051014647 = weight(_text_:h in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051014647 = score(doc=1968,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.4948537 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036212735 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. To take into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations, L. Egghe (2006a) proposed the g-index as an improvement of the h-index. I have worked out 26 practical cases of physicists from the Institute of Physics at Chemnitz University of Technology, and compare the h and g values in this study. It is demonstrated that the g-index discriminates better between different citation patterns. This also can be achieved by evaluating B.H. Jin's (2006) A-index, which reflects the average number of citations in the h-core, and interpreting it in conjunction with the h-index. h and A can be combined into the R-index to measure the h-core's citation intensity. I also have determined the A and R values for the 26 datasets. For a better comparison, I utilize interpolated indices. The correlations between the various indices as well as with the total number of papers and the highest citation counts are discussed. The largest Pearson correlation coefficient is found between g and R. Although the correlation between g and h is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either h or g.

Object

h-Index

0.017073559 = product of:
  0.042683896 = sum of:
    0.024577528 = weight(_text_:u in 4613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024577528 = score(doc=4613,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494254 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 4613, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4613)
    0.018106367 = product of:
      0.036212735 = sum of:
        0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 4613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036212735 = score(doc=4613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 4613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Academic journals play an important role in scientific communication. The effective organization of journals can help reveal the thematic contents of journals and thus make them more user-friendly. In this study, the Self-Organizing Map (SOM) technique was employed to visually analyze the 60 library and information science-related journals published from 2006 to 2008. The U-matrix by Ultsch (2003) was applied to categorize the journals into 19 clusters according to their subjects. Four journals were recommended to supplement library collections although they were not indexed by SCI/SSCI. A novel SOM display named Attribute Accumulation Matrix (AA-matrix) was proposed, and the results from this method show that they correlate significantly with the total occurrences of the subjects in the investigated journals. The AA-matrix was employed to identify the 86 salient subjects, which could be manually classified into 7 meaningful groups. A method of the Salient Attribute Projection was constructed to label the attribute characteristics of different clusters. Finally, the subject characteristics of the journals with high impact factors (IFs) were also addressed. The findings of this study can lead to a better understanding of the subject structure and characteristics of library/information-related journals.

0.017008886 = product of:
  0.08504443 = sum of:
    0.08504443 = sum of:
      0.041589152 = weight(_text_:h in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041589152 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 2004, 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=2004)
      0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04345528 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.

Object

h-index

0.017008886 = product of:
  0.08504443 = sum of:
    0.08504443 = sum of:
      0.041589152 = weight(_text_:h in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041589152 = score(doc=3336,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 3336, 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=3336)
      0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04345528 = score(doc=3336,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 3336, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3336)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Adding or deleting items such as self-citations has an influence on the h-index of an author. This influence will be proved mathematically in this article. We hereby prove the experimental finding in E. Gianoli and M.A. Molina-Montenegro ([2009]) that the influence of adding or deleting self-citations on the h-index is greater for low values of the h-index. Why this is logical also is shown by a simple theoretical example. Adding or deleting sources such as adding or deleting minor contributions of an author also has an influence on the h-index of this author; this influence is modeled in this article. This model explains some practical examples found in X. Hu, R. Rousseau, and J. Chen (in press).

Object

h-index

0.016570097 = product of:
  0.082850486 = sum of:
    0.082850486 = sum of:
      0.031637944 = weight(_text_:h in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031637944 = score(doc=2861,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = 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)
      0.05121254 = weight(_text_:l in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05121254 = score(doc=2861,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.016191108 = product of:
  0.080955535 = sum of:
    0.080955535 = sum of:
      0.044742804 = weight(_text_:h in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044742804 = score(doc=2009,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.4340154 = fieldWeight in 2009, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2009)
      0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036212735 = score(doc=2009,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 2009, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2009)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The article studies the influence of the query formulation of a topic on its h-index. In order to generate pure random sets of documents, we used N-grams (N variable) to measure this influence: strings of zeros, truncated at the end. The used databases are WoS and Scopus. The formula h=T**1/alpha, proved in Egghe and Rousseau (2006) where T is the number of retrieved documents and is Lotka's exponent, is confirmed being a concavely increasing function of T. We also give a formula for the relation between h and N the length of the N-gram: h=D10**(-N/alpha) where D is a constant, a convexly decreasing function, which is found in our experiments. Nonlinear regression on h=T**1/alpha gives an estimation of , which can then be used to estimate the h-index of the entire database (Web of Science [WoS] and Scopus): h=S**1/alpha, , where S is the total number of documents in the database.

Object

h-index

0.015864408 = product of:
  0.03966102 = sum of:
    0.02560627 = product of:
      0.05121254 = sum of:
        0.05121254 = weight(_text_:l in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05121254 = score(doc=4186,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.014054747 = product of:
      0.028109495 = sum of:
        0.028109495 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028109495 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

0.015742252 = product of:
  0.07871126 = sum of:
    0.07871126 = sum of:
      0.028013427 = weight(_text_:h in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028013427 = score(doc=3124,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.27173662 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
      0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050697833 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We present a rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and prove that it is a power law (hence a straight line in the log-log scale). This is confirmed by experimental data of Pyykkö and by data produced in this article on 206 mathematics journals. This distribution is of a completely different nature than the impact factor (IF) rank-order distribution which (as proved in a previous article) is S-shaped. This is also confirmed by our example. Only in the log-log scale of the h-index distribution do we notice a concave deviation of the straight line for higher ranks. This phenomenon is discussed.

Object

h-index

0.015731899 = product of:
  0.07865949 = sum of:
    0.07865949 = sum of:
      0.04244675 = weight(_text_:h in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04244675 = score(doc=1237,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.41174316 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
      0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036212735 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The h-index provides us with 9 natural classes which can be written as a matrix of 3 vectors. The 3 vectors are: X = (X1, X2, X3) and indicates publication distribution in the h-core, the h-tail, and the uncited ones, respectively; Y = (Y1, Y2, Y3) denotes the citation distribution of the h-core, the h-tail and the so-called "excess" citations (above the h-threshold), respectively; and Z = (Z1, Z2, Z3) = (Y1-X1, Y2-X2, Y3-X3). The matrix V = (X,Y,Z)T constructs a measure of academic performance, in which the 9 numbers can all be provided with meanings in different dimensions. The "academic trace" tr(V) of this matrix follows naturally, and contributes a unique indicator for total academic achievements by summarizing and weighting the accumulation of publications and citations. This measure can also be used to combine the advantages of the h-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3) into a single number with a meaningful interpretation of the values. We illustrate the use of tr(V) for the cases of 2 journal sets, 2 universities, and ourselves as 2 individual authors.

Object

h-index

0.015437335 = product of:
  0.038593337 = sum of:
    0.02172764 = product of:
      0.04345528 = sum of:
        0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04345528 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016865695 = product of:
      0.03373139 = sum of:
        0.03373139 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373139 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170