-
Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000)
0.01
0.009455826 = product of:
0.037823305 = sum of:
0.037823305 = weight(_text_:b in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037823305 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance
-
Chen, C.; Paul, R.J.; O'Keefe, B.: Fitting the Jigsaw of citation : information visualization in domain analysis (2001)
0.01
0.009455826 = product of:
0.037823305 = sum of:
0.037823305 = weight(_text_:b in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037823305 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5766)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Gorraiz, J.: "Web of Science" versus "Scopus" oder das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliotheken (2006)
0.01
0.009455826 = product of:
0.037823305 = sum of:
0.037823305 = weight(_text_:b in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037823305 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5021, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5021)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".
-
Mayr, P.; Walter, A.-K.: Abdeckung und Aktualität des Suchdienstes Google Scholar (2006)
0.01
0.009455826 = product of:
0.037823305 = sum of:
0.037823305 = weight(_text_:b in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037823305 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5131)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Der Beitrag widmet sich dem neuen Google-Suchdienst Google Scholar. Die Suchmaschine, die ausschließlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente durchsuchen soll, wird mit ihren wichtigsten Funktionen beschrieben und anschließend einem empirischen Test unterzogen. Die durchgeführte Studie basiert auf drei Zeitschriftenlisten: Zeitschriften von Thomson Scientific, Open AccessZeitschriften des Verzeichnisses DOAJ und in der Fachdatenbank SOLIS ausgewertete sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Die Abdeckung dieser Zeitschriften durch Google Scholar wurde per Abfrage der Zeitschriftentitel überprüft. Die Studie zeigt Defizite in der Abdeckung und Aktualität des Google Scholarlndex. Weiterhin macht die Studie deutlich, wer die wichtigsten Datenlieferanten für den neuen Suchdienst sind und welche wissenschaftlichen Informationsquellen im Index repräsentiert sind. Die Pluspunkte von Google Scholar liegen in seiner Einfachheit, seiner Suchgeschwindigkeit und letztendlich seiner Kostenfreiheit. Die Recherche in Fachdatenbanken kann Google Scholar trotz sichtbarer Potenziale (z. B. Zitationsanalyse) aber heute aufgrund mangelnder fachlicher Abdeckung und Transparenz nicht ersetzen.
-
Aguillo, I.F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L.; Prieto, J.A.: Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetrics indicators (2006)
0.01
0.009455826 = product of:
0.037823305 = sum of:
0.037823305 = weight(_text_:b in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037823305 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5898, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5898)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Daquino, M.; Peroni, S.; Shotton, D.; Colavizza, G.; Ghavimi, B.; Lauscher, A.; Mayr, P.; Romanello, M.; Zumstein, P.: ¬The OpenCitations Data Model (2020)
0.01
0.009455826 = product of:
0.037823305 = sum of:
0.037823305 = weight(_text_:b in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037823305 = score(doc=38,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 38, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=38)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021)
0.01
0.009455826 = product of:
0.037823305 = sum of:
0.037823305 = weight(_text_:b in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037823305 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Johnson, B.; Oppenheim, C.: How socially connected are citers to those that they cite? (2007)
0.01
0.007879855 = product of:
0.03151942 = sum of:
0.03151942 = weight(_text_:b in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03151942 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Moya-Anegón, F.de; Guerrero-Bote, V.P.: Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data : a comparison with the Journal Citation Reports of the ISI (2010)
0.01
0.007879855 = product of:
0.03151942 = sum of:
0.03151942 = weight(_text_:b in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03151942 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010)
0.01
0.007879855 = product of:
0.03151942 = sum of:
0.03151942 = weight(_text_:b in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03151942 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
-
Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002)
0.01
0.007697953 = product of:
0.030791812 = sum of:
0.030791812 = product of:
0.061583623 = sum of:
0.061583623 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061583623 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15917146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.00653193 = product of:
0.02612772 = sum of:
0.02612772 = product of:
0.05225544 = sum of:
0.05225544 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05225544 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15917146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
White, H.D.; Wellman, B.; Nazer, N.: Does Citation Reflect Social Structure? : Longitudinal Evidence From the "Globenet" Interdisciplinary Research Group (2004)
0.01
0.006303884 = product of:
0.025215536 = sum of:
0.025215536 = weight(_text_:b in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025215536 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008)
0.01
0.006303884 = product of:
0.025215536 = sum of:
0.025215536 = weight(_text_:b in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025215536 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1610411 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.
-
Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013)
0.01
0.006158362 = product of:
0.024633449 = sum of:
0.024633449 = product of:
0.049266897 = sum of:
0.049266897 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049266897 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15917146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 17.12.2013 11:02:22
-
Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001)
0.01
0.005388567 = product of:
0.021554269 = sum of:
0.021554269 = product of:
0.043108538 = sum of:
0.043108538 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043108538 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15917146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 16.12.2001 14:01:22
-
Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020)
0.01
0.005388567 = product of:
0.021554269 = sum of:
0.021554269 = product of:
0.043108538 = sum of:
0.043108538 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043108538 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15917146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 17.11.2020 12:22:59
-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.00
0.004618772 = product of:
0.018475087 = sum of:
0.018475087 = product of:
0.036950175 = sum of:
0.036950175 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036950175 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15917146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
-
Snyder, H.; Bonzi, S.: Patterns of self-citation across disciplines : 1980-1989 (1998)
0.00
0.004618772 = product of:
0.018475087 = sum of:
0.018475087 = product of:
0.036950175 = sum of:
0.036950175 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036950175 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15917146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:33:24
-
wst: Cut-and-paste-Wissenschaft (2003)
0.00
0.004618772 = product of:
0.018475087 = sum of:
0.018475087 = product of:
0.036950175 = sum of:
0.036950175 = weight(_text_:22 in 1270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036950175 = score(doc=1270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15917146 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0454538 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1270, 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=1270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Content
- "Mikhail Simkin und Vwani Roychowdhury von der University of Califomia, Los Angeles, haben eine in der wissenschaftlichen Gemeinschaft verbreitete Unsitte erstmals quantitativ erfasst. Die Wissenschaftler analysierten die Verbreitung von Druckfehlern in den Literaturlisten wissenschaftlicher Arbeiten (www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043). 78 Prozent aller zitierten Aufsätze - so schätzen die Forscher - haben die zitierenden Wissenschaftler demnach nicht gelesen, sondern nur per 'cut and paste' von einer Vorlage in ihre eigene Literaturliste übernommen. Das könne man beispielsweise abschätzen aus der Analyse fehlerhafter Seitenangaben in der Literaturliste eines 1973 veröffentlichten Aufsatzes über die Struktur zweidimensionaler Kristalle: Dieser Aufsatz ist rund 4300 mal zitiert worden. In 196 Fällen enthalten die Zitate jedoch Fehler in der Jahreszahl, dem Band der Zeitschrift oder der Seitenzahl, die als Indikatoren für cut and paste genommen werden können, denn man kann, obwohl es Milliarden Möglichkeiten gibt, nur 45 verschiedene Arten von Druckfehlern unterscheiden. In erster Näherung ergibt sich eine Obergrenze für die Zahl der `echten Leser' daher aus der Zahl der unterscheidbaren Druckfehler (45) geteilt durch die Gesamtzahl der Publikationen mit Druckfehler (196), das macht etwa 22 Prozent."
