-
Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008)
0.03
0.02576656 = product of:
0.0644164 = sum of:
0.050361652 = sum of:
0.014148918 = weight(_text_:h in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014148918 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = 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)
0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036212735 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
0.014054747 = product of:
0.028109495 = sum of:
0.028109495 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028109495 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = 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)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 22. 6.2008 12:54:12
- Source
- Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.2, S.14-20
-
Ye, F.Y.; Yu, S.S.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations at the country level and its dynamic evolution under the pressures of globalization (2013)
0.03
0.025374835 = product of:
0.06343709 = sum of:
0.04170945 = weight(_text_:u in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04170945 = score(doc=1110,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30697915 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
0.02172764 = product of:
0.04345528 = sum of:
0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345528 = score(doc=1110,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Using data from the Web of Science (WoS), we analyze the mutual information among university, industry, and government addresses (U-I-G) at the country level for a number of countries. The dynamic evolution of the Triple Helix can thus be compared among developed and developing nations in terms of cross-sectional coauthorship relations. The results show that the Triple Helix interactions among the three subsystems U-I-G become less intensive over time, but unequally for different countries. We suggest that globalization erodes local Triple Helix relations and thus can be expected to have increased differentiation in national systems since the mid-1990s. This effect of globalization is more pronounced in developed countries than in developing ones. In the dynamic analysis, we focus on a more detailed comparison between China and the United States. Specifically, the Chinese Academy of the (Social) Sciences is changing increasingly from a public research institute to an academic one, and this has a measurable effect on China's position in the globalization.
-
Stock, W.: Informetrische Vermessung der Forschung und Entwicklung eines Landes : beispielhafte Resultate und Probleme (1992)
0.03
0.025321592 = product of:
0.06330398 = sum of:
0.049155056 = weight(_text_:u in 342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049155056 = score(doc=342,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 342, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=342)
0.014148918 = product of:
0.028297836 = sum of:
0.028297836 = weight(_text_:h in 342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028297836 = score(doc=342,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 342, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=342)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Source
- Information und Dokumentation in den 90er Jahren: neue Herausforderung, neue Technologien. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1991, Universität Ulm, 30.9.-2.10.1991. Hrsg.: W. Neubauer u. K.-H. Meier
-
Kim, P.J.; Lee, J.Y.; Park, J.-H.: Developing a new collection-evaluation method : mapping and the user-side h-index (2009)
0.03
0.025217602 = product of:
0.063044004 = sum of:
0.022371402 = product of:
0.044742804 = sum of:
0.044742804 = weight(_text_:h in 3171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044742804 = score(doc=3171,freq=20.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.4340154 = fieldWeight in 3171, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0406726 = product of:
0.0813452 = sum of:
0.0813452 = weight(_text_:lee in 3171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0813452 = score(doc=3171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24718519 = queryWeight, product of:
5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.32908607 = fieldWeight in 3171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This study proposes a new visualization method and index for collection evaluation. Specifically, it develops a network-based mapping technique and a user-focused Hirsch index (user-side h-index) given the lack of previous studies on collection evaluation methods that have used the h-index. A user-side h-index is developed and compared with previous indices (use factor, difference of percentages, collection-side h-index) that represent the strengths of the subject classes of a library collection. The mapping procedure includes the subject-usage profiling of 63 subject classes and collection-usage map generations through the pathfinder network algorithm. Cluster analyses are then conducted upon the pathfinder network to generate 5 large and 14 small clusters. The nodes represent the strengths of the subject-class usages reflected by the user-side h-index. The user-side h-index was found to have advantages (e.g., better demonstrating the real utility of each subject class) over the other indices. It also can more clearly distinguish the strengths between the subject classes than can collection-side h-index. These results may help to identify actual usage and strengths of subject classes in library collections through visualized maps. This may be a useful rationale for the establishment of the collection-development plan.
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.: ¬The Hirsch index and related impact measures (2010)
0.02
0.024173593 = product of:
0.12086796 = sum of:
0.12086796 = sum of:
0.0339574 = weight(_text_:h in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0339574 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
0.08691056 = weight(_text_:l in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08691056 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.; Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A relation between h-index and impact factor in the power-law model (2009)
0.02
0.022791084 = product of:
0.113955416 = sum of:
0.113955416 = sum of:
0.032015346 = weight(_text_:h in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032015346 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.31055614 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
0.08194007 = weight(_text_:l in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08194007 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.49683157 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.: Dynamic h-index : the Hirsch index in function of time (2007)
0.02
0.021712217 = product of:
0.10856108 = sum of:
0.10856108 = sum of:
0.050620705 = weight(_text_:h in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050620705 = score(doc=147,freq=10.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = 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)
0.05794038 = weight(_text_:l in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05794038 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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.
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007)
0.02
0.021344937 = product of:
0.10672469 = sum of:
0.10672469 = sum of:
0.056026854 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056026854 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = 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)
0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050697833 = score(doc=477,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.02
0.020583114 = product of:
0.051457785 = sum of:
0.02897019 = product of:
0.05794038 = sum of:
0.05794038 = weight(_text_:l in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05794038 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.022487596 = product of:
0.04497519 = sum of:
0.04497519 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04497519 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Shi, D.; Rousseau, R.; Yang, L.; Li, J.: ¬A journal's impact factor is influenced by changes in publication delays of citing journals (2017)
0.02
0.020488268 = product of:
0.05122067 = sum of:
0.029493032 = weight(_text_:u in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029493032 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
0.02172764 = product of:
0.04345528 = sum of:
0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345528 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In this article we describe another problem with journal impact factors by showing that one journal's impact factor is dependent on other journals' publication delays. The proposed theoretical model predicts a monotonically decreasing function of the impact factor as a function of publication delay, on condition that the citation curve of the journal is monotone increasing during the publication window used in the calculation of the journal impact factor; otherwise, this function has a reversed U shape. Our findings based on simulations are verified by examining three journals in the information sciences: the Journal of Informetrics, Scientometrics, and the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
-
Jeong, S.; Lee, S.; Kim, H.-G.: Are you an invited speaker? : a bibliometric analysis of elite groups for scholarly events in bioinformatics (2009)
0.02
0.020270959 = product of:
0.050677396 = sum of:
0.010004795 = product of:
0.02000959 = sum of:
0.02000959 = weight(_text_:h in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02000959 = score(doc=2847,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.1940976 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0406726 = product of:
0.0813452 = sum of:
0.0813452 = weight(_text_:lee in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0813452 = score(doc=2847,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24718519 = queryWeight, product of:
5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.32908607 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Participating in scholarly events (e.g., conferences, workshops, etc.) as an elite-group member such as an organizing committee chair or member, program committee chair or member, session chair, invited speaker, or award winner is beneficial to a researcher's career development. The objective of this study is to investigate whether elite-group membership for scholarly events is representative of scholars' prominence, and which elite group is the most prestigious. We collected data about 15 global (excluding regional) bioinformatics scholarly events held in 2007. We sampled (via stratified random sampling) participants from elite groups in each event. Then, bibliometric indicators (total citations and h index) of seven elite groups and a non-elite group, consisting of authors who submitted at least one paper to an event but were not included in any elite group, were observed using the Scopus Citation Tracker. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to examine the differences among the eight groups. Multiple comparison tests (Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner) were conducted as follow-up procedures. The experimental results reveal that scholars in an elite group have better performance in bibliometric indicators than do others. Among the elite groups, the invited speaker group has statistically significantly the best performance while the other elite-group types are not significantly distinguishable. From this analysis, we confirm that elite-group membership in scholarly events, at least in the field of bioinformatics, can be utilized as an alternative marker for a scholar's prominence, with invited speaker being the most important prominence indicator among the elite groups.
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬The Hirsch index of a shifted Lotka function and its relation with the impact factor (2012)
0.02
0.019843703 = product of:
0.09921851 = sum of:
0.09921851 = sum of:
0.048520677 = weight(_text_:h in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048520677 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050697833 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The inconsistency of the h-index : the case of web accessibility in Western European countries (2012)
0.02
0.01942933 = product of:
0.097146645 = sum of:
0.097146645 = sum of:
0.053691365 = weight(_text_:h in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053691365 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = 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)
0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345528 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.02
0.01903729 = product of:
0.04759322 = sum of:
0.030727526 = product of:
0.061455052 = sum of:
0.061455052 = weight(_text_:l in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061455052 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.37262368 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.016865695 = product of:
0.03373139 = sum of:
0.03373139 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373139 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
Egghe, L.: ¬The influence of transformations on the h-index and the g-index (2008)
0.02
0.01899819 = product of:
0.094990954 = sum of:
0.094990954 = sum of:
0.044293117 = weight(_text_:h in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044293117 = score(doc=1881,freq=10.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.42965335 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050697833 = score(doc=1881,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- In a previous article, we introduced a general transformation on sources and one on items in an arbitrary information production process (IPP). In this article, we investigate the influence of these transformations on the h-index and on the g-index. General formulae that describe this influence are presented. These are applied to the case that the size-frequency function is Lotkaian (i.e., is a decreasing power function). We further show that the h-index of the transformed IPP belongs to the interval bounded by the two transformations of the h-index of the original IPP, and we also show that this property is not true for the g-index.
- Object
- h-index
-
Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system : influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups (2008)
0.02
0.018543491 = product of:
0.046358727 = sum of:
0.029493032 = weight(_text_:u in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029493032 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 2758, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2758)
0.016865695 = product of:
0.03373139 = sum of:
0.03373139 = weight(_text_:22 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373139 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2758, 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=2758)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:03:12
- Footnote
- Vgl. auch: Costas, R., M. Bordons u. T.N. van Leeuwen u.a.: Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.740-753.
-
Egghe, L.; Ravichandra Rao, I.K.: Study of different h-indices for groups of authors (2008)
0.02
0.018295659 = product of:
0.091478296 = sum of:
0.091478296 = sum of:
0.048023015 = weight(_text_:h in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048023015 = score(doc=1878,freq=16.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345528 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.: Mathematical study of h-index sequences (2009)
0.02
0.018246343 = product of:
0.09123172 = sum of:
0.09123172 = sum of:
0.04001918 = weight(_text_:h in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04001918 = score(doc=4217,freq=16.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4217, 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=4217)
0.05121254 = weight(_text_:l in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05121254 = score(doc=4217,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang's h-sequences are above the "normal" ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author.
- Object
- h-index
-
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
0.017445477 = product of:
0.08722738 = sum of:
0.08722738 = sum of:
0.051014647 = weight(_text_:h in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051014647 = score(doc=1968,freq=26.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = 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)
0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036212735 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
-
An, L.; Zhang, J.; Yu, C.: ¬The visual subject analysis of library and information science journals with self-organizing map (2011)
0.02
0.017073559 = product of:
0.042683896 = sum of:
0.024577528 = weight(_text_:u in 4613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024577528 = score(doc=4613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 4613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4613)
0.018106367 = product of:
0.036212735 = sum of:
0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 4613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036212735 = score(doc=4613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 4613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4613)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Academic journals play an important role in scientific communication. The effective organization of journals can help reveal the thematic contents of journals and thus make them more user-friendly. In this study, the Self-Organizing Map (SOM) technique was employed to visually analyze the 60 library and information science-related journals published from 2006 to 2008. The U-matrix by Ultsch (2003) was applied to categorize the journals into 19 clusters according to their subjects. Four journals were recommended to supplement library collections although they were not indexed by SCI/SSCI. A novel SOM display named Attribute Accumulation Matrix (AA-matrix) was proposed, and the results from this method show that they correlate significantly with the total occurrences of the subjects in the investigated journals. The AA-matrix was employed to identify the 86 salient subjects, which could be manually classified into 7 meaningful groups. A method of the Salient Attribute Projection was constructed to label the attribute characteristics of different clusters. Finally, the subject characteristics of the journals with high impact factors (IFs) were also addressed. The findings of this study can lead to a better understanding of the subject structure and characteristics of library/information-related journals.
