Search (113 results, page 2 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Vinkler, P.: Core indicators and professional recognition of scientometricians (2017) 0.01 
    0.014678019 = product of:
  0.044034056 = sum of:
    0.044034056 = weight(_text_:p in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044034056 = score(doc=3329,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.28089944 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The publication performance of 30 scientometricians is studied. The individuals are classified into 3 cohorts according to their manifested professional recognition, as Price medalists (Pm), members of the editorial board of Scientometrics and the Journal of Informetrics (Rw), and session chairs (Sc) at an International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) conference. Several core impact indicators are calculated: h, g, p, citation distribution score (CDS), percentage rank position (PRP), and weight of influence of papers (WIP10). The indices significantly correlate with each other. The mean value of the indices of the cohorts decreases parallel with the decrease in professional recognition: Pm?>?Rw?>?Sc. The 30 scientometricians studied were clustered according to the core impact indices. The members in the clusters so obtained overlap only partly with the members in the cohorts made by professional recognition. The Total Overlap is calculated by dividing the sum of the diagonal elements in the cohorts-clusters matrix with the total number of elements, times 100. The highest overlap (76.6%) was obtained with the g-index. Accordingly, the g-index seems to have the greatest discriminative power in the system studied. The cohorts-clusters method may be used for validating scientometric indicators.
  2. Ahlgren, P.; Colliander, C.; Sjögårde, P.: Exploring the relation between referencing practices and citation impact : a large-scale study based on Web of Science data (2018) 0.01 
    0.014678019 = product of:
  0.044034056 = sum of:
    0.044034056 = weight(_text_:p in 4250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044034056 = score(doc=4250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.28089944 = fieldWeight in 4250, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4250)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  3. Hicks, D.; Wouters, P.; Waltman, L.; Rijcke, S. de; Rafols, I.: ¬The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics : 10 principles to guide research evaluation (2015) 0.01 
    0.014530497 = product of:
  0.04359149 = sum of:
    0.04359149 = weight(_text_:p in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04359149 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  4. Malesios, C.: Some variations on the standard theoretical models for the h-index : a comparative analysis (2015) 0.01 
    0.014530497 = product of:
  0.04359149 = sum of:
    0.04359149 = weight(_text_:p in 2267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04359149 = score(doc=2267,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 2267, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2267)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Various mathematical models have been proposed in the recent literature for estimating the h-index using measures such as number of articles (P) and citations received (C). These models have been previously empirically tested assuming a mathematical model and predetermining the models' parameter values at some fixed constant. The present study, from a statistical modeling viewpoint, investigates alternative distributions commonly used for this type of point data. The study shows that the typical assumptions for the parameters of the h-index mathematical models in such representations are not always realistic, with more suitable specifications being favorable. Prediction of the h-index is also demonstrated.
  5. Radev, D.R.; Joseph, M.T.; Gibson, B.; Muthukrishnan, P.: ¬A bibliometric and network analysis of the field of computational linguistics (2016) 0.01 
    0.014530497 = product of:
  0.04359149 = sum of:
    0.04359149 = weight(_text_:p in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04359149 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  6. Böhm, P.; Rittberger, M.: Einsatz von Webanalyse in überregionalen Informationsinfrastruktureinrichtungen (2016) 0.01 
    0.014530497 = product of:
  0.04359149 = sum of:
    0.04359149 = weight(_text_:p in 3239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04359149 = score(doc=3239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 3239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3239)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  7. Fassin, Y.: ¬A new qualitative rating system for scientific publications and a fame index for academics (2018) 0.01 
    0.014530497 = product of:
  0.04359149 = sum of:
    0.04359149 = weight(_text_:p in 4571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04359149 = score(doc=4571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 4571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4571)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    An innovative approach is proposed for a rating system for academic publications based on a categorization into ratings comparable to financial ratings such as Moody's and S&P ratings (AAA, AA, A, BA, BBB, BB, B, C). The categorization makes use of a variable percentile approach based on recently developed h-related indices. Building on this categorization, a new index is proposed for researchers, the fame-index or f2-index. This new index integrates some qualitative elements related to the influence of a researcher's articles. It better mitigates than the classic h-index.
  8. Nelson, G.M.; Eggett, D.L.: Citations, mandates, and money : author motivations to publish in chemistry hybrid open access journals (2017) 0.01 
    0.014381464 = product of:
  0.04314439 = sum of:
    0.04314439 = weight(_text_:p in 3838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04314439 = score(doc=3838,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.27522412 = fieldWeight in 3838, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3838)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Hybrid open access refers to articles freely accessible via the Internet but which originate from an academic journal that provides most of its content via subscription. The effect of hybrid open access on citation counts and author behavior in the field of chemistry is something that has not been widely studied. We compared 814 open access articles and 27,621 subscription access articles published from 2006 through 2011 in American Chemical Society journals. As expected, the 2 comparison groups are not equal in all respects. Cumulative citation data were analyzed from years 2-5 following an article's publication date. A citation advantage for open access articles was correlated with the journal impact factor (IF) in low and medium IF journals, but not in high IF journals. Open access articles have a 24% higher mean citation rate than their subscription counterparts in low IF journals (confidence limits 8-42%, p = .0022) and similarly, a 26% higher mean citation rate in medium IF journals (confidence limits 14-40%, p < .001). Open access articles in high IF journals had no significant difference compared to subscription access articles (13% lower mean citation rate, confidence limits -27-3%, p = .10). These results are correlative, not causative, and may not be completely due to an open access effect. Authors of the open access articles were also surveyed to determine why they chose a hybrid open access option, paid the required article processing charge, and whether they believed it was money well spent. Authors primarily chose open access because of funding mandates; however, most considered the money well spent because open access increases information access to the scientific community and the general public, and potentially increases citations to their scholarship.
  9. Zhou, P.; Su, X.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences (2010) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 3580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=3580,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 3580, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3580)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  10. Ahlgren, P.; Järvelin, K.: Measuring impact of twelve information scientists using the DCI index (2010) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  11. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing als Re-Ranking-Ansatz in Literaturinformationssystemen (2011) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 4292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=4292,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4292, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4292)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  12. Mayr, P.: Bradfordizing mit Katalogdaten : Alternative Sicht auf Suchergebnisse und Publikationsquellen durch Re-Ranking (2010) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=4301,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  13. Hammarfelt, B.: Citation analysis on the micro level : the example of Walter Benjamin's Illuminations (2011) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 4441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=4441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4441)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    "One can go even further and remember that interruption is one of the fundamental devices of all structuring. It goes far beyond the sphere of art. To give only one example, it is the basis of quotation. To quote a text involves the interruption of its context." [Walter Benjamin (1968/2007, p. 151)]
  14. Mayr, P.: Information Retrieval-Mehrwertdienste für Digitale Bibliotheken: : Crosskonkordanzen und Bradfordizing (2010) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=4910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  15. Rokach, L.; Mitra, P.: Parsimonious citer-based measures : the artificial intelligence domain as a case study (2013) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=212,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 212, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=212)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  16. Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Bergeron, P.: In their own image? : a comparison of doctoral students' and faculty members' referencing behavior (2013) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  17. Albarrán, P.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: Differences in citation impact across countries (2015) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=1665,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 1665, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1665)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  18. Tang, L.; Shapira, P.; Youtie, J.: Is there a clubbing effect underlying Chinese research citation increases? (2015) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 2169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=2169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2169)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  19. Donner, P.: Enhanced self-citation detection by fuzzy author name matching and complementary error estimates (2016) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 2776) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=2776,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2776, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2776)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  20. Leginus, M.; Zhai, C.X.; Dolog, P.: Personalized generation of word clouds from tweets (2016) 0.01 
    0.012454711 = product of:
  0.037364133 = sum of:
    0.037364133 = weight(_text_:p in 2886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037364133 = score(doc=2886,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15676093 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04359905 = queryNorm
        0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2886, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2886)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Authors

Languages

  • e 103
  • d 9
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 110
  • el 2
  • m 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications