-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.04
0.04231755 = product of:
0.0846351 = sum of:
0.0846351 = sum of:
0.0095056575 = weight(_text_:a in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0095056575 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
0.044131473 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044131473 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030997967 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.5 = 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
- Type
- a
-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.04
0.035330825 = product of:
0.07066165 = sum of:
0.07066165 = sum of:
0.006985203 = weight(_text_:a in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006985203 = score(doc=402,freq=6.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.026478881 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026478881 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03719756 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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).
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.157-182
- Type
- a
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.03
0.034973085 = product of:
0.06994617 = sum of:
0.06994617 = sum of:
0.0047050603 = weight(_text_:a in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047050603 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
0.021843962 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021843962 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.04339715 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04339715 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.1, S.1-8
- Type
- a
-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.03
0.033295516 = product of:
0.06659103 = sum of:
0.06659103 = sum of:
0.010670074 = weight(_text_:a in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010670074 = score(doc=1350,freq=14.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018723397 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03719756 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.5 = 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
- Type
- a
-
Ntuli, H.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Chang, T.; Pouris, A.: Does research output cause economic growth or vice versa? : evidence from 34 OECD countries (2015)
0.03
0.03145308 = product of:
0.06290616 = sum of:
0.06290616 = sum of:
0.006985203 = weight(_text_:a in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006985203 = score(doc=2132,freq=6.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018723397 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03719756 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The causal relation between research and economic growth is of particular importance for political support of science and technology as well as for academic purposes. This article revisits the causal relationship between research articles published and economic growth in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries for the period 1981-2011, using bootstrap panel causality analysis, which accounts for cross-section dependency and heterogeneity across countries. The article, by the use of the specific method and the choice of the country group, makes a contribution to the existing literature. Our empirical results support unidirectional causality running from research output (in terms of total number of articles published) to economic growth for the US, Finland, Hungary, and Mexico; the opposite causality from economic growth to research articles published for Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, the UK, Austria, Israel, and Poland; and no causality for the rest of the countries. Our findings provide important policy implications for research policies and strategies for OECD countries.
- Date
- 8. 7.2015 22:00:42
- Type
- a
-
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)
0.03
0.030812176 = product of:
0.061624352 = sum of:
0.061624352 = sum of:
0.0057033943 = weight(_text_:a in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0057033943 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018723397 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03719756 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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
- Type
- a
-
Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012)
0.03
0.029976932 = product of:
0.059953865 = sum of:
0.059953865 = sum of:
0.004032909 = weight(_text_:a in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004032909 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018723397 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.03719756 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03719756 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.2, S.71-80
- Type
- a
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.03
0.02748698 = product of:
0.05497396 = sum of:
0.05497396 = product of:
0.08246094 = sum of:
0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008065818 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.07439512 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07439512 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Type
- a
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Liu, J.S.: ¬A new approach for main path analysis : decay in knowledge diffusion (2016)
0.03
0.027416471 = product of:
0.054832943 = sum of:
0.054832943 = sum of:
0.008232141 = weight(_text_:a in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008232141 = score(doc=2649,freq=12.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015602832 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030997967 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Main path analysis is a powerful tool for extracting the backbones of a directed network and has been applied widely in bibliometric studies. In contrast to the no-decay assumption in the traditional approach, this study proposes a novel technique by assuming that the strength of knowledge decays when knowledge contained in one document is passed on to another document down the citation chain. We propose three decay models, arithmetic decay, geometric decay, and harmonic decay, along with their theoretical properties. In general, results of the proposed decay models depend largely on the local structure of a citation network as opposed to the global structure in the traditional approach. Thus, the significance of citation links and the associated documents that are overemphasized by the global structure in the traditional no-decay approach is treated more properly. For example, the traditional approach commonly assigns high value to documents that heavily reference others, such as review articles. Specifically in the geometric and harmonic decay models, only truly significant review articles will be included in the resulting main paths. We demonstrate this new approach and its properties through the DNA literature citation network.
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:23:00
- Type
- a
-
Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012)
0.03
0.0262109 = product of:
0.0524218 = sum of:
0.0524218 = sum of:
0.0058210026 = weight(_text_:a in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0058210026 = score(doc=4959,freq=6.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015602832 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030997967 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study uses three bibliometric methods: direct citation, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship analysis, to investigate interdisciplinary changes in library and information science (LIS) from 1978 to 2007. The results reveal that LIS researchers most frequently cite publications in their own discipline. In addition, half of all co-authors of LIS articles are affiliated with LIS-related institutes. The results confirm that the degree of interdisciplinarity within LIS has increased, particularly co-authorship. However, the study found sources of direct citations in LIS articles are widely distributed across 30 disciplines, but co-authors of LIS articles are distributed across only 25 disciplines. The degree of interdisciplinarity was found ranging from 0.61 to 0.82 with citation to references in all articles being the highest and that of co-authorship being the lowest. Percentages of contribution attributable to LIS show a decreasing tendency based on the results of direct citation and co-authorship analysis, but an increasing tendency based on those of bibliographic coupling analysis. Such differences indicate each of the three bibliometric methods has its strength and provides insights respectively for viewing various aspects of interdisciplinarity, suggesting the use of no single bibliometric method can reveal all aspects of interdisciplinarity due to its multifaceted nature.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
- Type
- a
-
Hovden, R.: Bibliometrics for Internet media : applying the h-index to YouTube (2013)
0.02
0.02410163 = product of:
0.04820326 = sum of:
0.04820326 = product of:
0.07230489 = sum of:
0.0105208345 = weight(_text_:a in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0105208345 = score(doc=1111,freq=10.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
0.06178406 = weight(_text_:h in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06178406 = score(doc=1111,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.
- Object
- h-index
- Type
- a
-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The inconsistency of the h-index : the case of web accessibility in Western European countries (2012)
0.02
0.023538455 = product of:
0.04707691 = sum of:
0.04707691 = product of:
0.070615366 = sum of:
0.011406789 = weight(_text_:a in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011406789 = score(doc=40,freq=16.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.05920858 = weight(_text_:h in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05920858 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Bartolucci, F.: On a possible decomposition of the h-index. (2012)
0.02
0.021454852 = product of:
0.042909704 = sum of:
0.042909704 = product of:
0.06436455 = sum of:
0.011406789 = weight(_text_:a in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011406789 = score(doc=454,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 454, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=454)
0.052957762 = weight(_text_:h in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052957762 = score(doc=454,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 454, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=454)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
- Type
- a
-
Egghe, L.: Note on a possible decomposition of the h-Index (2013)
0.02
0.021454852 = product of:
0.042909704 = sum of:
0.042909704 = product of:
0.06436455 = sum of:
0.011406789 = weight(_text_:a in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011406789 = score(doc=683,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
0.052957762 = weight(_text_:h in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052957762 = score(doc=683,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
- Type
- a
-
Bertoli-Barsotti, L.: Improving a decomposition of the h-index (2013)
0.02
0.021454852 = product of:
0.042909704 = sum of:
0.042909704 = product of:
0.06436455 = sum of:
0.011406789 = weight(_text_:a in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011406789 = score(doc=976,freq=4.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
0.052957762 = weight(_text_:h in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052957762 = score(doc=976,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
- Type
- a
-
Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010)
0.02
0.021412004 = product of:
0.042824008 = sum of:
0.042824008 = product of:
0.06423601 = sum of:
0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008065818 = score(doc=3418,freq=8.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
0.056170188 = weight(_text_:h in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056170188 = score(doc=3418,freq=18.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.49409178 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
- Object
- h-index
- Type
- a
-
Schreiber, M.: Restricting the h-index to a citation time window : a case study of a timed Hirsch index (2014)
0.02
0.020650957 = product of:
0.041301914 = sum of:
0.041301914 = product of:
0.06195287 = sum of:
0.012023811 = weight(_text_:a in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012023811 = score(doc=1563,freq=10.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
0.04992906 = weight(_text_:h in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04992906 = score(doc=1563,freq=8.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
- Type
- a
-
Engqvist, L.; Frommen, J.G.: New insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations? (2010)
0.02
0.020341193 = product of:
0.040682387 = sum of:
0.040682387 = product of:
0.061023578 = sum of:
0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008065818 = score(doc=3594,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
0.052957762 = weight(_text_:h in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052957762 = score(doc=3594,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
- Type
- a
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The thermodynamics-bibliometrics consilience and the meaning of h-type indices (2012)
0.02
0.020341193 = product of:
0.040682387 = sum of:
0.040682387 = product of:
0.061023578 = sum of:
0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008065818 = score(doc=4990,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
0.052957762 = weight(_text_:h in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052957762 = score(doc=4990,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
- Type
- a
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The inconsistency of the H-index (2012)
0.02
0.020341193 = product of:
0.040682387 = sum of:
0.040682387 = product of:
0.061023578 = sum of:
0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008065818 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
0.052957762 = weight(_text_:h in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052957762 = score(doc=287,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045758117 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
- Type
- a
