-
H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008)
0.03
0.028596988 = product of:
0.057193976 = sum of:
0.057193976 = product of:
0.08579096 = sum of:
0.048998274 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048998274 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.435748 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
0.03679269 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03679269 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- "Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."
- Date
- 6. 4.2008 19:04:22
- Object
- H-Index
- Source
- Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.1, S.124-125
-
Oppenheim, C.: Using the h-Index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship (2007)
0.03
0.025703475 = product of:
0.05140695 = sum of:
0.05140695 = product of:
0.077110425 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
0.0414111 = weight(_text_:h in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0414111 = score(doc=780,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3682743 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The recently developed h-index has been applied to the literature produced by senior British-based academics in librarianship and information science. The majority of those evaluated currently hold senior positions in UK information science and librarianship departments; however, a small number of staff in other departments and retired "founding fathers" were analyzed as well. The analysis was carried out using the Web of Science (Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) for the years from 1992 to October 2005, and included both secondauthored papers and self-citations. The top-ranking British information scientist, Peter Willett, has an h-index of 31. However, it was found that Eugene Garfield, the founder of modern citation studies, has an even higher h-index of 36. These results support other studies suggesting that the h-index is a useful tool in the armory of bibliometrics.
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.02
0.024583243 = product of:
0.049166486 = sum of:
0.049166486 = product of:
0.07374973 = sum of:
0.02469281 = weight(_text_:h in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02469281 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.04905692 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04905692 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 4.12.2006 12:12:22
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406
-
Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007)
0.02
0.024583243 = product of:
0.049166486 = sum of:
0.049166486 = product of:
0.07374973 = sum of:
0.02469281 = weight(_text_:h in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02469281 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
0.04905692 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04905692 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 30.12.2007 11:22:39
-
Chen, C.: CiteSpace II : detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2006)
0.02
0.024244212 = product of:
0.048488423 = sum of:
0.048488423 = product of:
0.072732635 = sum of:
0.042072058 = weight(_text_:c in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042072058 = score(doc=5272,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 5272, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5272)
0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030660577 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article describes the latest development of a generic approach to detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. The work makes substantial theoretical and methodological contributions to progressive knowledge domain visualization. A specialty is conceptualized and visualized as a time-variant duality between two fundamental concepts in information science: research fronts and intellectual bases. A research front is defined as an emergent and transient grouping of concepts and underlying research issues. The intellectual base of a research front is its citation and co-citation footprint in scientific literature - an evolving network of scientific publications cited by research-front concepts. Kleinberg's (2002) burst-detection algorithm is adapted to identify emergent research-front concepts. Freeman's (1979) betweenness centrality metric is used to highlight potential pivotal points of paradigm shift over time. Two complementary visualization views are designed and implemented: cluster views and time-zone views. The contributions of the approach are that (a) the nature of an intellectual base is algorithmically and temporally identified by emergent research-front terms, (b) the value of a co-citation cluster is explicitly interpreted in terms of research-front concepts, and (c) visually prominent and algorithmically detected pivotal points substantially reduce the complexity of a visualized network. The modeling and visualization process is implemented in CiteSpace II, a Java application, and applied to the analysis of two research fields: mass extinction (1981-2004) and terrorism (1990-2003). Prominent trends and pivotal points in visualized networks were verified in collaboration with domain experts, who are the authors of pivotal-point articles. Practical implications of the work are discussed. A number of challenges and opportunities for future studies are identified.
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 16:11:05
-
Pernik, V.; Schlögl, C.: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von Web Structure Mining am Beispiel von informationswissenschaftlichen Hochschulinstituten im deutschsprachigen Raum (2006)
0.02
0.024097301 = product of:
0.048194602 = sum of:
0.048194602 = product of:
0.0722919 = sum of:
0.047599096 = weight(_text_:c in 78) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047599096 = score(doc=78,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 78, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=78)
0.02469281 = weight(_text_:h in 78) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02469281 = score(doc=78,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 78, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=78)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.407-414
-
Schlögl, C.; Gorraiz, J.; Bart, C.; Bargmann, M.: Messen und gemessen werden : Möglichkeiten und Grenzen quantitativer Forschungsevaluierungen am Beispiel eines Institutsvergleichs (2001)
0.02
0.023002025 = product of:
0.04600405 = sum of:
0.04600405 = product of:
0.06900607 = sum of:
0.050486468 = weight(_text_:c in 5958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050486468 = score(doc=5958,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.32338172 = fieldWeight in 5958, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5958)
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 5958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=5958,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 5958, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5958)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 52(2001) H.4, S.221-228
-
Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008)
0.02
0.022821188 = product of:
0.045642376 = sum of:
0.045642376 = product of:
0.068463564 = sum of:
0.03780299 = weight(_text_:h in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03780299 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3361869 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030660577 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
- Object
- h-index
-
Antonakis, J.; Lalive, R.: Quantifying scholarly impact : IQp versus the Hirsch h (2008)
0.02
0.022517476 = product of:
0.045034952 = sum of:
0.045034952 = product of:
0.067552425 = sum of:
0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029749434 = score(doc=1722,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
0.03780299 = weight(_text_:h in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03780299 = score(doc=1722,freq=12.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3361869 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Hirsch's (2005) h index of scholarly output has generated substantial interest and wide acceptance because of its apparent ability to quantify scholarly impact simply and accurately. We show that the excitement surrounding h is premature for three reasons: h stagnates with increasing scientific age; it is highly dependent on publication quantity; and it is highly dependent on field-specific citation rates. Thus, it is not useful for comparing scholars across disciplines. We propose the scholarly index of quality and productivity (IQp) as an alternative to h. The new index takes into account a scholar's total impact and also corrects for field-specific citation rates, scholarly productivity, and scientific age. The IQp accurately predicts group membership on a common metric, as tested on a sample of 80 scholars from three populations: (a) Nobel winners in physics (n = 10), chemistry (n = 10), medicine (n = 10), and economics (n = 10), and towering psychologists (n = 10); and scholars who have made more modest contributions to science including randomly selected (b) fellows (n = 15) and (c) members (n = 15) of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The IQp also correlates better with expert ratings of greatness than does the h index.
-
Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008)
0.02
0.02108514 = product of:
0.04217028 = sum of:
0.04217028 = product of:
0.063255414 = sum of:
0.041649207 = weight(_text_:c in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041649207 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
0.021606207 = weight(_text_:h in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021606207 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Nah, I.W.; Kang, D.-S.; Lee, D.-H.; Chung, Y.-C.: ¬A bibliometric evaluation of research performance in different subject categories (2009)
0.02
0.02108514 = product of:
0.04217028 = sum of:
0.04217028 = product of:
0.063255414 = sum of:
0.041649207 = weight(_text_:c in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041649207 = score(doc=2772,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
0.021606207 = weight(_text_:h in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021606207 = score(doc=2772,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.02
0.018437434 = product of:
0.036874868 = sum of:
0.036874868 = product of:
0.0553123 = sum of:
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
0.03679269 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03679269 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 3. 1.2007 17:22:03
-
Gorraiz, J.; Schlögl, C.: Zusammenhang von Zeitschriftennachfrage und -zitationshäufigkeiten : ¬Eine bibliometrische Analyse eines Dokumentlieferdienstes am Beispiel von Subito (2003)
0.02
0.018072978 = product of:
0.036145955 = sum of:
0.036145955 = product of:
0.05421893 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 50(2003) H.3, S.131-140
-
Juchem, K.; Schlögl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Dimensionen der Zeitschriftenszientometrie am Beispiel von "Buch und Bibliothek" (2006)
0.02
0.018072978 = product of:
0.036145955 = sum of:
0.036145955 = product of:
0.05421893 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=4931,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4931, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4931)
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=4931,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 4931, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4931)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.1, S.31-37
-
Schlögl, C; Stock, W.G.: Deutsche Zeitschriften des Bibliotheks- und Informationswesens : Leser, Zitate und Redaktionen in szientometrischer Analyse (2006)
0.02
0.018072978 = product of:
0.036145955 = sum of:
0.036145955 = product of:
0.05421893 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 52) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=52,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 52, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=52)
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 52) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=52,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 52, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=52)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 53(2006) H.5, S.244-255
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.02
0.016352307 = product of:
0.032704614 = sum of:
0.032704614 = product of:
0.09811384 = sum of:
0.09811384 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09811384 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Tonta, Y.; Ünal, Y.: Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests (2005)
0.02
0.016109336 = product of:
0.032218672 = sum of:
0.032218672 = product of:
0.04832801 = sum of:
0.023799548 = weight(_text_:c in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023799548 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
0.02452846 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02452846 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.
- Date
- 20. 3.2005 10:54:22
-
Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007)
0.02
0.015364528 = product of:
0.030729055 = sum of:
0.030729055 = product of:
0.046093583 = sum of:
0.015433006 = weight(_text_:h in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015433006 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = 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)
0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030660577 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 23.12.2007 19:22:21
- Source
- B.I.T.online. 10(2007) H.2, S.xxx-xxx
-
Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008)
0.02
0.015364528 = product of:
0.030729055 = sum of:
0.030729055 = product of:
0.046093583 = sum of:
0.015433006 = weight(_text_:h in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015433006 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = 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)
0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030660577 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
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
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Universality of citation distributions : a validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry (2009)
0.02
0.015060814 = product of:
0.030121628 = sum of:
0.030121628 = product of:
0.04518244 = sum of:
0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029749434 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.015433006 = weight(_text_:h in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015433006 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2954, 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=2954)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
