Search (171 results, page 1 of 9)

0.14787437 = product of:
  0.22181155 = sum of:
    0.19333075 = weight(_text_:index in 2684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19333075 = score(doc=2684,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.8703715 = fieldWeight in 2684, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2684)
    0.028480802 = product of:
      0.056961603 = sum of:
        0.056961603 = weight(_text_:classification in 2684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056961603 = score(doc=2684,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16188543 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 2684, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In this work we develop new journal classification methods based on the h-index. The introduction of the h-index for research evaluation has attracted much attention in the bibliometric study and research quality evaluation. The main purpose of using an h-index is to compare the index for different research units (e.g. researchers, journals, etc.) to differentiate their research performance. However the h-index is defined by only comparing citations counts of one's own publications, it is doubtful that the h index alone should be used for reliable comparisons among different research units, like researchers or journals. In this paper we propose a new global h-index (Gh-index), where the publications in the core are selected in comparison with all the publications of the units to be evaluated. Furthermore, we introduce some variants of the Gh-index to address the issue of discrimination power. We show that together with the original h-index, they can be used to evaluate and classify academic journals with some distinct advantages, in particular that they can produce an automatic classification into a number of categories without arbitrary cut-off points. We then carry out an empirical study for classification of operations research and management science (OR/MS) journals using this index, and compare it with other well-known journal ranking results such as the Association of Business Schools (ABS) Journal Quality Guide and the Committee of Professors in OR (COPIOR) ranking lists.

Object

h-index

0.11871903 = product of:
  0.17807853 = sum of:
    0.1608609 = weight(_text_:index in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1608609 = score(doc=4147,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.72419286 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
    0.01721763 = product of:
      0.03443526 = sum of:
        0.03443526 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03443526 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.09349018 = product of:
  0.28047055 = sum of:
    0.28047055 = weight(_text_:index in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28047055 = score(doc=3418,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        1.2626734 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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
g-index
e-index

0.08299127 = product of:
  0.24897382 = sum of:
    0.24897382 = weight(_text_:index in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24897382 = score(doc=1111,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        1.1208756 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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
g-index

0.07506842 = product of:
  0.22520526 = sum of:
    0.22520526 = weight(_text_:index in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22520526 = score(doc=2264,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        1.01387 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The h-index was devised to represent a scholar's contributions to his field with respect to the number of publications and citations. It does not, however, take into consideration the scholar's position in the authorship list. I recommend a new supplementary index to score academics, representing the relative contribution to the papers with impact, be reported alongside the h-index. I call this index the AP-index, and it is simply defined as the average position in which an academic appears in authorship lists, on articles that factor in to that academic's h-index.

Object

h-index

0.07443855 = product of:
  0.11165782 = sum of:
    0.09099667 = weight(_text_:index in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09099667 = score(doc=1350,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
    0.020661155 = product of:
      0.04132231 = sum of:
        0.04132231 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04132231 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.07339382 = product of:
  0.110090725 = sum of:
    0.0928731 = weight(_text_:index in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0928731 = score(doc=4635,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.418113 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.01721763 = product of:
      0.03443526 = sum of:
        0.03443526 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03443526 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.

0.07004927 = product of:
  0.21014781 = sum of:
    0.21014781 = weight(_text_:index in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21014781 = score(doc=1207,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.94608164 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The h-index, as originally proposed (Hirsch, 2005), is a purely heuristic construction. Burrell (2013) showed that efforts to derive formulae from the mathematical framework of Lotkaian informetrics could lead to misleading results. On this note, we argue that a simple heuristic "thermodynamical" model can enable a better three-dimensional (3D) evaluation of the information production process leading to what we call the zynergy-index.

Object

h-index
zynergy-index.

0.07004927 = product of:
  0.21014781 = sum of:
    0.21014781 = weight(_text_:index in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21014781 = score(doc=2350,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.94608164 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

I discuss how, given a certain number of articles and citations of these articles, the h-index and the g-index are affected by the level of concentration of the citations. This offers the opportunity for a comparison between these 2 indices from a new perspective.

Object

g-index
h-index

0.06782492 = product of:
  0.20347476 = sum of:
    0.20347476 = weight(_text_:index in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20347476 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.91603965 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

Object

h-index

0.06678665 = product of:
  0.10017997 = sum of:
    0.075830564 = weight(_text_:index in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075830564 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
    0.024349404 = product of:
      0.04869881 = sum of:
        0.04869881 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04869881 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23

0.06444359 = product of:
  0.19333075 = sum of:
    0.19333075 = weight(_text_:index in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19333075 = score(doc=3428,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.8703715 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Based on the principles of the h-index, I propose a new measure, the w-index, as a particularly simple and more useful way to assess the substantial impact of a researcher's work, especially regarding excellent papers. The w-index can be defined as follows: If w of a researcher's papers have at least 10w citations each and the other papers have fewer than 10(w+1) citations, that researcher's w-index is w. The results demonstrate that there are noticeable differences between the w-index and the h-index, because the w-index plays close attention to the more widely cited papers. These discrepancies can be measured by comparing the ranks of 20 astrophysicists, a few famous physical scientists, and 16 Price medalists. Furthermore, I put forward the w(q)-index to improve the discriminatory power of the w-index and to rank scientists with the same w. The factor q is the least number of citations a researcher with w needed to reach w+1. In terms of both simplicity and accuracy, the w-index or w(q)-index can be widely used for evaluation of scientists, journals, conferences, scientific topics, research institutions, and so on.

Object

W-index

0.06434436 = product of:
  0.19303308 = sum of:
    0.19303308 = weight(_text_:index in 3332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19303308 = score(doc=3332,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.8690314 = fieldWeight in 3332, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3332)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The specific impact index, or s-index, is introduced as a measure of a scientist's projected impact per paper. The index is complementary to other indices that measure overall impact as it can distinguish between authors maximizing the quantity of their output and authors maximizing the quality of their output. It also can be used to monitor career progress. The main advantage of the new index is that it reduces age bias from older papers that have more time to accumulate citations than do more recent papers. The index was tested on 24 scientists in different fields and of different statures. The overall projected impact estimated from the index correlates well with Hirsch's h-index squared (r**2=0.99). The impact of different aging models was evaluated as well.

Object

h-index

0.0639876 = product of:
  0.0959814 = sum of:
    0.083929054 = weight(_text_:index in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.083929054 = score(doc=2597,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.37784708 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
    0.01205234 = product of:
      0.02410468 = sum of:
        0.02410468 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02410468 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17800546 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05083213 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.06394595 = product of:
  0.19183783 = sum of:
    0.19183783 = weight(_text_:index in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19183783 = score(doc=1563,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.86365044 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.06129311 = product of:
  0.18387933 = sum of:
    0.18387933 = weight(_text_:index in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18387933 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.82782143 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.

Object

h-index

0.06129311 = product of:
  0.18387933 = sum of:
    0.18387933 = weight(_text_:index in 4571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18387933 = score(doc=4571,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.82782143 = fieldWeight in 4571, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4571)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An innovative approach is proposed for a rating system for academic publications based on a categorization into ratings comparable to financial ratings such as Moody's and S&P ratings (AAA, AA, A, BA, BBB, BB, B, C). The categorization makes use of a variable percentile approach based on recently developed h-related indices. Building on this categorization, a new index is proposed for researchers, the fame-index or f2-index. This new index integrates some qualitative elements related to the influence of a researcher's articles. It better mitigates than the classic h-index.

0.060664445 = product of:
  0.18199334 = sum of:
    0.18199334 = weight(_text_:index in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18199334 = score(doc=3594,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Object

h-index

0.060664445 = product of:
  0.18199334 = sum of:
    0.18199334 = weight(_text_:index in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18199334 = score(doc=287,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Object

h-index

0.060664445 = product of:
  0.18199334 = sum of:
    0.18199334 = weight(_text_:index in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18199334 = score(doc=454,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2221244 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05083213 = queryNorm
        0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 454, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=454)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Object

h-index