-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.06
0.055905007 = product of:
0.11181001 = sum of:
0.11181001 = product of:
0.16771501 = sum of:
0.094421774 = weight(_text_:l in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.094421774 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
0.07329323 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07329323 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786383 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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
-
Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998)
0.06
0.05502057 = product of:
0.11004114 = sum of:
0.11004114 = product of:
0.16506171 = sum of:
0.078684814 = weight(_text_:l in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.078684814 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.4391412 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
0.086376905 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.086376905 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15786383 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:22:35
-
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)
0.05
0.048865058 = product of:
0.097730115 = sum of:
0.097730115 = product of:
0.14659517 = sum of:
0.05217339 = weight(_text_:h in 6094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05217339 = score(doc=6094,freq=4.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.094421774 = weight(_text_:l in 6094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.094421774 = score(doc=6094,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 6094, 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=6094)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Engqvist, L.; Frommen, J.G.: New insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations? (2010)
0.05
0.048865058 = product of:
0.097730115 = sum of:
0.097730115 = product of:
0.14659517 = sum of:
0.05217339 = weight(_text_:h in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05217339 = score(doc=3594,freq=4.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
0.094421774 = weight(_text_:l in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.094421774 = score(doc=3594,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 3594, 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=3594)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.: Note on a possible decomposition of the h-Index (2013)
0.05
0.048865058 = product of:
0.097730115 = sum of:
0.097730115 = product of:
0.14659517 = sum of:
0.05217339 = weight(_text_:h in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05217339 = score(doc=683,freq=4.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.094421774 = weight(_text_:l in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.094421774 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 683, 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=683)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
-
Bertoli-Barsotti, L.: Improving a decomposition of the h-index (2013)
0.05
0.048865058 = product of:
0.097730115 = sum of:
0.097730115 = product of:
0.14659517 = sum of:
0.05217339 = weight(_text_:h in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05217339 = score(doc=976,freq=4.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.094421774 = weight(_text_:l in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.094421774 = score(doc=976,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 976, 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=976)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.: ¬The Hirsch index and related impact measures (2010)
0.04
0.04377131 = product of:
0.08754262 = sum of:
0.08754262 = product of:
0.13131393 = sum of:
0.036892157 = weight(_text_:h in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036892157 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.094421774 = weight(_text_:l in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.094421774 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
-
Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008)
0.04
0.042626493 = product of:
0.085252985 = sum of:
0.085252985 = sum of:
0.015371733 = weight(_text_:h in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015371733 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.039342407 = weight(_text_:l in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039342407 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.03053885 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03053885 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786383 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
- Date
- 22. 6.2008 12:54:12
- Source
- Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.2, S.14-20
-
Egghe, L.; Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A relation between h-index and impact factor in the power-law model (2009)
0.04
0.04126799 = product of:
0.08253598 = sum of:
0.08253598 = product of:
0.123803966 = sum of:
0.03478226 = weight(_text_:h in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03478226 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.089021705 = weight(_text_:l in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.089021705 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.: Dynamic h-index : the Hirsch index in function of time (2007)
0.04
0.03931448 = product of:
0.07862896 = sum of:
0.07862896 = product of:
0.117943436 = sum of:
0.054995585 = weight(_text_:h in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054995585 = score(doc=147,freq=10.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.062947854 = weight(_text_:l in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062947854 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = 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.
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007)
0.04
0.038649447 = product of:
0.077298895 = sum of:
0.077298895 = product of:
0.115948334 = sum of:
0.060868956 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060868956 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.055079374 = weight(_text_:l in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055079374 = score(doc=477,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.04
0.037270006 = product of:
0.07454001 = sum of:
0.07454001 = product of:
0.11181001 = sum of:
0.062947854 = weight(_text_:l in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062947854 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.04886216 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04886216 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786383 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬The Hirsch index of a shifted Lotka function and its relation with the impact factor (2012)
0.04
0.035931148 = product of:
0.071862295 = sum of:
0.071862295 = product of:
0.107793435 = sum of:
0.052714065 = weight(_text_:h in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052714065 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.055079374 = weight(_text_:l in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055079374 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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)
0.04
0.035180837 = product of:
0.070361674 = sum of:
0.070361674 = product of:
0.10554251 = sum of:
0.058331624 = weight(_text_:h in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058331624 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.047210887 = weight(_text_:l in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047210887 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = 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
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.03
0.034470968 = product of:
0.068941936 = sum of:
0.068941936 = product of:
0.1034129 = sum of:
0.066766284 = weight(_text_:l in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066766284 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.036646616 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036646616 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15786383 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
Egghe, L.: ¬The influence of transformations on the h-index and the g-index (2008)
0.03
0.034400173 = product of:
0.068800345 = sum of:
0.068800345 = product of:
0.10320051 = sum of:
0.04812114 = weight(_text_:h in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04812114 = score(doc=1881,freq=10.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.055079374 = weight(_text_:l in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055079374 = score(doc=1881,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Egghe, L.; Ravichandra Rao, I.K.: Study of different h-indices for groups of authors (2008)
0.03
0.033128094 = product of:
0.06625619 = sum of:
0.06625619 = product of:
0.09938428 = sum of:
0.05217339 = weight(_text_:h in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05217339 = score(doc=1878,freq=16.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.047210887 = weight(_text_:l in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047210887 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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)
0.03
0.0330388 = product of:
0.0660776 = sum of:
0.0660776 = product of:
0.09911639 = sum of:
0.043477826 = weight(_text_:h in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043477826 = score(doc=4217,freq=16.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.055638567 = weight(_text_:l in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055638567 = score(doc=4217,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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)
0.03
0.03158866 = product of:
0.06317732 = sum of:
0.06317732 = product of:
0.094765976 = sum of:
0.055423573 = weight(_text_:h in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055423573 = score(doc=1968,freq=26.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.039342407 = weight(_text_:l in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039342407 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = 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)
0.6666667 = 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
-
Egghe, L.: Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship (2008)
0.03
0.030798122 = product of:
0.061596245 = sum of:
0.061596245 = product of:
0.09239437 = sum of:
0.045183484 = weight(_text_:h in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045183484 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
0.111999914 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
0.047210887 = weight(_text_:l in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047210887 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17917885 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045080382 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 2004, 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=2004)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.
- Object
- h-index
