Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011797213 = product of:
  0.058986064 = sum of:
    0.058986064 = weight(_text_:u in 3669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058986064 = score(doc=3669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494254 = queryNorm
        0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 3669, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3669)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.01112252 = product of:
  0.055612598 = sum of:
    0.055612598 = weight(_text_:u in 5624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055612598 = score(doc=5624,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494254 = queryNorm
        0.40930554 = fieldWeight in 5624, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5624)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Der Text ist eine überarbeitete Version des von Herb, U. (2018): Zwangsehen und Bastarde : Wohin steuert Big Data die Wissenschaft? In: Information - Wissenschaft & Praxis, 69(2-3), S. 81-88. DOI:10.1515/iwp-2018-0021.

0.007950566 = product of:
  0.039752826 = sum of:
    0.039752826 = product of:
      0.07950565 = sum of:
        0.07950565 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07950565 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.00786481 = product of:
  0.039324045 = sum of:
    0.039324045 = weight(_text_:u in 2701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039324045 = score(doc=2701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041494254 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 2701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2701)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0050620707 = product of:
  0.025310352 = sum of:
    0.025310352 = product of:
      0.050620705 = sum of:
        0.050620705 = weight(_text_:h in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050620705 = score(doc=407,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Diese Note legt dar, dass der sogenannte h-Index (Hirschs bibliometrischer Index) im Wesentlichen dieselbe Information wiedergibt wie die Gesamtanzahl von Zitationen von Publikationen einer Autorin oder eines Autors, also ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index ist. Dies basiert auf einem faszinierenden Satz der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, der hier ebenfalls erläutert wird.

Content

Vgl.: DOI: 10.1515/dmvm-2021-0050. Auch abgedruckt u.d.T.: 'Der h-Index - "ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index"' in Open Password Nr. 1007 vom 06.12.2021 unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzM3NCwiZDI3MzMzOTEwMzUzIiwwLDAsMzQ4LDFd.

Object

h-index

Source

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2021, H.3, S.124-128

0.0045276536 = product of:
  0.022638267 = sum of:
    0.022638267 = product of:
      0.045276534 = sum of:
        0.045276534 = weight(_text_:h in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045276534 = score(doc=1563,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.4391927 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The h-index has been shown to increase in many cases mostly because of citations to rather old publications. This inertia can be circumvented by restricting the evaluation to a citation time window. Here I report results of an empirical study analyzing the evolution of the thus defined timed h-index in dependence on the length of the citation time window.

Object

h-index

0.0039616968 = product of:
  0.019808484 = sum of:
    0.019808484 = product of:
      0.03961697 = sum of:
        0.03961697 = weight(_text_:h in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03961697 = score(doc=855,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.38429362 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Publication in academic journals is a key criterion for appointment, tenure and promotion in universities. Many universities weigh publications according to the quality or impact of the journal. Traditionally, journal quality has been assessed through the ISI Journal Impact Factor (JIF). This paper proposes an alternative metric - Hirsch's h-index - and data source - Google Scholar - to assess journal impact. Using a systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI JIF for a sample of 838 journals in Economics & Business, we argue that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.

Object

h-index

0.0028013426 = product of:
  0.014006713 = sum of:
    0.014006713 = product of:
      0.028013427 = sum of:
        0.028013427 = weight(_text_:h in 5738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028013427 = score(doc=5738,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.27173662 = fieldWeight in 5738, 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=5738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

h-index

Source

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2019, H.3-4, S.112-117