Search (1350 results, page 2 of 68)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.03 
    0.027416471 = product of:
  0.054832943 = sum of:
    0.054832943 = sum of:
      0.008232141 = weight(_text_:a in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008232141 = score(doc=916,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045758117 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
      0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015602832 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045758117 = queryNorm
          0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
      0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030997967 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045758117 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:02
    Type
    a
  4. 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
  5. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.03 
    0.025676813 = product of:
  0.051353626 = sum of:
    0.051353626 = sum of:
      0.0047528287 = weight(_text_:a in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047528287 = score(doc=1934,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045758117 = queryNorm
          0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015602832 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045758117 = queryNorm
          0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030997967 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045758117 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Um sich einer Antwort auf die Frage anzunähern, welche Bedeutung der Nachlass eines Wissenschaftlers wie jener Paul F. Lazarsfelds (mit zahlreichen noch unveröffentlichten Schriften) für die aktuelle Forschung haben könne, kann untersucht werden, wie häufig dieser Wissenschaftler zitiert wird. Wenn ein Autor zitiert wird, wird er auch genutzt. Wird er über einen langen Zeitraum oft genutzt, ist vermutlich auch die Auseinandersetzung mit seinem Nachlass von Nutzen. Außerdem kann aufgrund der Zitierungen festgestellt werden, was aus dem Lebenswerk eines Wissenschaftlers für die aktuelle Forschung relevant erscheint. Daraus können die vordringlichen Fragestellungen in der Bearbeitung des Nachlasses abgeleitet werden. Die Aufgabe für die folgende Untersuchung lautete daher: Wie oft wird Paul F. Lazarsfeld zitiert? Dabei interessierte auch: Wer zitiert wo? Die Untersuchung wurde mit Hilfe der Meta-Datenbank "ISI Web of Knowledge" durchgeführt. In dieser wurde im "Web of Science" mit dem Werkzeug "Cited Reference Search" nach dem zitierten Autor (Cited Author) "Lazarsfeld P*" gesucht. Diese Suche ergab 1535 Referenzen (References). Werden alle Referenzen gewählt, führt dies zu 4839 Ergebnissen (Results). Dabei wurden die Datenbanken SCI-Expanded, SSCI und A&HCI verwendet. Bei dieser Suche wurden die Publikationsjahre 1941-2008 analysiert. Vor 1956 wurden allerdings nur sehr wenige Zitate gefunden: 1946 fünf, ansonsten maximal drei, 1942-1944 und 1949 überhaupt keines. Zudem ist das Jahr 2008 noch lange nicht zu Ende. (Es gab jedoch schon vor Ende März 24 Zitate!)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.2, S.14-20
    Type
    a
  6. Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007) 0.02 
    0.024980778 = product of:
  0.049961556 = sum of:
    0.049961556 = sum of:
      0.0033607571 = weight(_text_:a in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0033607571 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045758117 = queryNorm
          0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
      0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015602832 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045758117 = queryNorm
          0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 875, 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=875)
      0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030997967 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045758117 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, 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=875)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    23.12.2007 19:22:21
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 10(2007) H.2, S.xxx-xxx
    Type
    a
  7. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007) 0.02 
    0.02410163 = product of:
  0.04820326 = sum of:
    0.04820326 = product of:
      0.07230489 = sum of:
        0.0105208345 = weight(_text_:a in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0105208345 = score(doc=477,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 477, 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=477)
        0.06178406 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06178406 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 477, 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=477)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Jorge Hirsch recently proposed the h index to quantify the research output of individual scientists. The new index has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific community. The claim that the h index in a single number provides a good representation of the scientific lifetime achievement of a scientist as well as the (supposed) simple calculation of the h index using common literature databases lead to the danger of improper use of the index. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the h index and summarize the studies on the convergent validity of this index. We also introduce corrections and complements as well as single-number alternatives to the h index.
    Object
    H-Index
    Type
    a
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Egghe, L.: Dynamic h-index : the Hirsch index in function of time (2007) 0.02 
    0.022997938 = product of:
  0.045995876 = sum of:
    0.045995876 = product of:
      0.068993814 = sum of:
        0.013171425 = weight(_text_:a in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013171425 = score(doc=147,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
        0.055822387 = weight(_text_:h in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055822387 = score(doc=147,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    When there are a group of articles and the present time is fixed we can determine the unique number h being the number of articles that received h or more citations while the other articles received a number of citations which is not larger than h. In this article, the time dependence of the h-index is determined. This is important to describe the expected career evolution of a scientist's work or of a journal's production in a fixed year.
    Type
    a
  11. Rousseau, R.; Ye, F.Y.: ¬A proposal for a dynamic h-type index (2008) 0.02 
    0.022997938 = product of:
  0.045995876 = sum of:
    0.045995876 = product of:
      0.068993814 = sum of:
        0.013171425 = weight(_text_:a in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013171425 = score(doc=2351,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
        0.055822387 = weight(_text_:h in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055822387 = score(doc=2351,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A time-dependent h-type indicator is proposed. This indicator depends on the size of the h-core, the number of citations received, and recent change in the value of the h-index. As such, it tries to combine in a dynamic way older information about the source (e.g., a scientist or research institute that is evaluated) with recent information.
    Object
    h-index
    Type
    a
  12. Gianoli, E.; Molina-Montenegro, M.A.: Insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations (2009) 0.02 
    0.022175856 = product of:
  0.044351712 = sum of:
    0.044351712 = product of:
      0.06652757 = sum of:
        0.0053772116 = weight(_text_:a in 2859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0053772116 = score(doc=2859,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2859, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2859)
        0.061150357 = weight(_text_:h in 2859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061150357 = score(doc=2859,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.537899 = fieldWeight in 2859, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2859)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We analyze the publication output of 119 Chilean ecologists and find strong evidence that self-citations significantly affect the h-index increase. Furthermore, we show that the relationship between the increase in the h-index and the proportion of self-citations differs between high and low h-index researchers. In particular, our results show that it is in the low h-index group where self-citations cause the greater impact.
    Object
    h-Index
    Type
    a
  13. Schreiber, M.: ¬An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index (2008) 0.02 
    0.021920823 = product of:
  0.043841645 = sum of:
    0.043841645 = product of:
      0.06576247 = sum of:
        0.0095056575 = weight(_text_:a in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0095056575 = score(doc=1968,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 1968, 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=1968)
        0.05625681 = weight(_text_:h in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05625681 = score(doc=1968,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.4948537 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. To take into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations, L. Egghe (2006a) proposed the g-index as an improvement of the h-index. I have worked out 26 practical cases of physicists from the Institute of Physics at Chemnitz University of Technology, and compare the h and g values in this study. It is demonstrated that the g-index discriminates better between different citation patterns. This also can be achieved by evaluating B.H. Jin's (2006) A-index, which reflects the average number of citations in the h-core, and interpreting it in conjunction with the h-index. h and A can be combined into the R-index to measure the h-core's citation intensity. I also have determined the A and R values for the 26 datasets. For a better comparison, I utilize interpolated indices. The correlations between the various indices as well as with the total number of papers and the highest citation counts are discussed. The largest Pearson correlation coefficient is found between g and R. Although the correlation between g and h is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either h or g.
    Object
    h-Index
    A-Index
    Type
    a
  14. Suraud, M.G.; Quoniam, L.; Rostaing, H.; Dou, H.: On the significance of data bases keywords for a large scale bibliometric investigation in fundamental physics (1995) 0.02 
    0.021454852 = product of:
  0.042909704 = sum of:
    0.042909704 = product of:
      0.06436455 = sum of:
        0.011406789 = weight(_text_:a in 6094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011406789 = score(doc=6094,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 6094, 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=6094)
        0.052957762 = weight(_text_:h in 6094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052957762 = score(doc=6094,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 6094, 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=6094)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Harzing, A.-W.; Wal, R. van der: ¬A Google Scholar h-index for journals : an alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business (2009) 0.02 
    0.021385275 = product of:
  0.04277055 = sum of:
    0.04277055 = product of:
      0.064155824 = sum of:
        0.014226765 = weight(_text_:a in 2630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014226765 = score(doc=2630,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.26964417 = fieldWeight in 2630, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2630)
        0.04992906 = weight(_text_:h in 2630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04992906 = score(doc=2630,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.4391927 = fieldWeight in 2630, 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=2630)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We propose a new data source (Google Scholar) and metric (Hirsch's h-index) to assess journal impact in the field of economics and business. A systematic comparison between the Google Scholar h-index and the ISI Journal Impact Factor for a sample of 838 journals in economics and business shows that the former provides a more accurate and comprehensive measure of journal impact.
    Object
    h-index
    Type
    a
  20. Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006) 0.02 
    0.020827956 = product of:
  0.041655913 = sum of:
    0.041655913 = product of:
      0.062483866 = sum of:
        0.009878568 = weight(_text_:a in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009878568 = score(doc=5275,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
        0.052605297 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052605297 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article we present an empirical approach to the study of the statistical properties of bibliometric indicators on a very relevant but not simply available aggregation level: the research group. We focus on the distribution functions of a coherent set of indicators that are used frequently in the analysis of research performance. In this sense, the coherent set of indicators acts as a measuring instrument. Better insight into the statistical properties of a measuring instrument is necessary to enable assessment of the instrument itself. The most basic distribution in bibliometric analysis is the distribution of citations over publications, and this distribution is very skewed. Nevertheless, we clearly observe the working of the central limit theorem and find that at the level of research groups the distribution functions of the main indicators, particularly the journal- normalized and the field-normalized indicators, approach normal distributions. The results of our study underline the importance of the idea of group oeuvre, that is, the role of sets of related publications as a unit of analysis.
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:20:22
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

Themes