-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.04
0.043974698 = product of:
0.087949395 = sum of:
0.087949395 = sum of:
0.0244244 = weight(_text_:d in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0244244 = score(doc=402,freq=10.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.28162137 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.026415905 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026415905 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
0.03710909 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03710909 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:35:26
- Footnote
- Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
- Language
- d
- Location
- D
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.157-182
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.04
0.041553922 = product of:
0.083107844 = sum of:
0.083107844 = sum of:
0.018021906 = weight(_text_:d in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018021906 = score(doc=900,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.2077985 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
0.02179201 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02179201 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
0.043293934 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043293934 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 14:04:09
- Language
- d
- Location
- D
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.1, S.1-8
-
Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014)
0.04
0.03561765 = product of:
0.0712353 = sum of:
0.0712353 = sum of:
0.015447348 = weight(_text_:d in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015447348 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.178113 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.018678864 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018678864 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.03710909 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03710909 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:11:29
-
Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012)
0.03
0.033355437 = product of:
0.066710874 = sum of:
0.066710874 = sum of:
0.010922924 = weight(_text_:d in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010922924 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
0.018678864 = weight(_text_:h in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018678864 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
0.03710909 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03710909 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:23:32
- Language
- d
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.2, S.71-80
-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.02
0.024983583 = product of:
0.049967166 = sum of:
0.049967166 = product of:
0.07495075 = sum of:
0.04402651 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04402651 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.03092424 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03092424 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 19:22:13
- Object
- h-index
-
White, H. D.: Co-cited author retrieval and relevance theory : examples from the humanities (2015)
0.02
0.019734526 = product of:
0.039469052 = sum of:
0.039469052 = product of:
0.059203576 = sum of:
0.021845847 = weight(_text_:d in 1687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021845847 = score(doc=1687,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.2518898 = fieldWeight in 1687, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1687)
0.03735773 = weight(_text_:h in 1687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03735773 = score(doc=1687,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 1687, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1687)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Freistetter, F.: Warum jeder (fast) jeden kennt (2017)
0.02
0.019734526 = product of:
0.039469052 = sum of:
0.039469052 = product of:
0.059203576 = sum of:
0.021845847 = weight(_text_:d in 3679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021845847 = score(doc=3679,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.2518898 = fieldWeight in 3679, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3679)
0.03735773 = weight(_text_:h in 3679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03735773 = score(doc=3679,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 3679, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3679)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Language
- d
- Source
- Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2017, H.7, S.79
-
Bannister, A.; Hulek, K.; Teschke, O.: ¬Das Zitationsverhalten in mathematischen Arbeiten : einige Anmerkungen (2017)
0.02
0.018959008 = product of:
0.037918016 = sum of:
0.037918016 = product of:
0.056877024 = sum of:
0.02574558 = weight(_text_:d in 4499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02574558 = score(doc=4499,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.296855 = fieldWeight in 4499, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4499)
0.031131444 = weight(_text_:h in 4499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031131444 = score(doc=4499,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 4499, 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=4499)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Language
- d
- Location
- D
- Source
- Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2017, H.4, S.208-214
-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.02
0.018595984 = product of:
0.03719197 = sum of:
0.03719197 = product of:
0.05578795 = sum of:
0.018678864 = weight(_text_:h in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018678864 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.03710909 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03710909 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:12:35
-
Ntuli, H.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Chang, T.; Pouris, A.: Does research output cause economic growth or vice versa? : evidence from 34 OECD countries (2015)
0.02
0.018595984 = product of:
0.03719197 = sum of:
0.03719197 = product of:
0.05578795 = sum of:
0.018678864 = weight(_text_:h in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018678864 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
0.03710909 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03710909 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 8. 7.2015 22:00:42
-
Mingers, J.; Macri, F.; Petrovici, D.: Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of business and management (2012)
0.02
0.01756338 = product of:
0.03512676 = sum of:
0.03512676 = product of:
0.05269014 = sum of:
0.010922924 = weight(_text_:d in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010922924 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
0.041767217 = weight(_text_:h in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041767217 = score(doc=2741,freq=10.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.3682743 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper considers the use of the h-index as a measure of a journal's research quality and contribution. We study a sample of 455 journals in business and management all of which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and the Association of Business School's peer review journal ranking list. The h-index is compared with both the traditional impact factors, and with the peer review judgements. We also consider two sources of citation data - the WoS itself and Google Scholar. The conclusions are that the h-index is preferable to the impact factor for a variety of reasons, especially the selective coverage of the impact factor and the fact that it disadvantages journals that publish many papers. Google Scholar is also preferred to WoS as a data source. However, the paper notes that it is not sufficient to use any single metric to properly evaluate research achievements.
- Object
- h-index
-
Walter, P.: Wie (un)zuverlässig ist die Forschung? (2017)
0.02
0.01644544 = product of:
0.03289088 = sum of:
0.03289088 = product of:
0.049336318 = sum of:
0.018204873 = weight(_text_:d in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018204873 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.20990817 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
0.031131444 = weight(_text_:h in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031131444 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 3455, 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=3455)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Language
- d
- Source
- Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2017, H.3, S.36-40
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Huang, M.-H.; Chen, D.-Z.: ¬A two-dimensional approach to performance evaluation for a large number of research institutions (2012)
0.02
0.016093552 = product of:
0.032187104 = sum of:
0.032187104 = product of:
0.048280653 = sum of:
0.010922924 = weight(_text_:d in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010922924 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
0.03735773 = weight(_text_:h in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03735773 = score(doc=58,freq=8.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 58, 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=58)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We characterize the research performance of a large number of institutions in a two-dimensional coordinate system based on the shapes of their h-cores so that their relative performance can be conveniently observed and compared. The 2D distribution of these institutions is then utilized (1) to categorize the institutions into a number of qualitative groups revealing the nature of their performance, and (2) to determine the position of a specific institution among the set of institutions. The method is compared with some major h-type indices and tested with empirical data using clinical medicine as an illustrative case. The method is extensible to the research performance evaluation at other aggregation levels such as researchers, journals, departments, and nations.
-
Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010)
0.02
0.016010672 = product of:
0.032021344 = sum of:
0.032021344 = product of:
0.04803201 = sum of:
0.010922924 = weight(_text_:d in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010922924 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
0.03710909 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03710909 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 28. 9.2010 12:54:22
-
Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011)
0.02
0.016010672 = product of:
0.032021344 = sum of:
0.032021344 = product of:
0.04803201 = sum of:
0.010922924 = weight(_text_:d in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010922924 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 4192, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4192)
0.03710909 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03710909 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:21:28
-
Li, J.; Shi, D.: Sleeping beauties in genius work : when were they awakened? (2016)
0.02
0.016010672 = product of:
0.032021344 = sum of:
0.032021344 = product of:
0.04803201 = sum of:
0.010922924 = weight(_text_:d in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010922924 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
0.03710909 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03710909 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:13:32
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.02
0.016010672 = product of:
0.032021344 = sum of:
0.032021344 = product of:
0.04803201 = sum of:
0.010922924 = weight(_text_:d in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010922924 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.03710909 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03710909 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012)
0.02
0.015496654 = product of:
0.030993309 = sum of:
0.030993309 = product of:
0.04648996 = sum of:
0.015565722 = weight(_text_:h in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015565722 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
0.03092424 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03092424 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, 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=4959)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Liu, J.S.: ¬A new approach for main path analysis : decay in knowledge diffusion (2016)
0.02
0.015496654 = product of:
0.030993309 = sum of:
0.030993309 = product of:
0.04648996 = sum of:
0.015565722 = weight(_text_:h in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015565722 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2649, 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=2649)
0.03092424 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03092424 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15985602 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2649, 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=2649)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:23:00
-
Tüür-Fröhlich, T.: Blackbox SSCI : Datenerfassung und Datenverarbeitung bei der kommerziellen Indexierung von Zitaten (2019)
0.01
0.0142421685 = product of:
0.028484337 = sum of:
0.028484337 = product of:
0.042726506 = sum of:
0.015765885 = weight(_text_:d in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015765885 = score(doc=5779,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.18178582 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
0.02696062 = weight(_text_:h in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02696062 = score(doc=5779,freq=6.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.23772003 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Zahlreiche Autoren, Autorinnen und kritische Initiativen (z. B. DORA) kritisieren den zu hohen und schädlichen Einfluss quantitativer Daten, welche akademische Instanzen für Evaluationszwecke heranziehen. Wegen des großen Einflusses der globalen Zitatdatenbanken von Thomson Reuters (bzw. Clarivate Analytics) auf die Bewertung der wissenschaftlichen Leistungen von Forscherinnen und Forschern habe ich extensive qualitative und quantitative Fallstudien zur Datenqualität des Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) durchgeführt, d. h. die Originaleinträge mit den SSCI-Datensätzen verglichen. Diese Fallstudien zeigten schwerste - nie in der Literatur erwähnte - Fehler, Verstümmelungen, Phantomautoren, Phantomwerke (Fehlerrate in der Fallstudie zu Beebe 2010, Harvard Law Review: 99 Prozent). Über die verwendeten Datenerfassungs- und Indexierungsverfahren von TR bzw. Clarivate Analytics ist nur wenig bekannt. Ein Ergebnis meiner Untersuchungen: Bei der Indexierung von Verweisen in Fußnoten (wie in den Rechtswissenschaften, gerade auch der USA, vorgeschrieben) scheinen die verwendeten Textanalyse-Anwendungen und -Algorithmen völlig überfordert. Eine Qualitätskontrolle scheint nicht stattzufinden. Damit steht der Anspruch des SSCI als einer multidisziplinären Datenbank zur Debatte. Korrekte Zitate in den Fußnoten des Originals können zu Phantom-Autoren, Phantom-Werken und Phantom-Referenzen degenerieren. Das bedeutet: Sämtliche Zeitschriften und Disziplinen, deren Zeitschriften und Büchern dieses oder ähnliche Zitierverfahren verwenden (Oxford-Style), laufen Gefahr, aufgrund starker Zitatverluste falsch, d. h. unterbewertet, zu werden. Wie viele UBOs (Unidentifiable Bibliographic Objects) sich in den Datenbanken SCI, SSCI und AHCI befinden, wäre nur mit sehr aufwändigen Prozeduren zu klären. Unabhängig davon handelt es sich, wie bei fast allen in meinen Untersuchungen gefundenen fatalen Fehlern, eindeutig um endogene Fehler in den Datenbanken, die nicht, wie oft behauptet, angeblich falsch zitierenden Autorinnen und Autoren zugeschrieben werden können, sondern erst im Laufe der Dateneingabe und -verarbeitung entstehen.
- Language
- d
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.5/6, S.241-248
