-
Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014)
0.07
0.07047003 = product of:
0.14094006 = sum of:
0.14094006 = sum of:
0.07439265 = weight(_text_:c in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07439265 = score(doc=1352,freq=6.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.3960601 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.022281334 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022281334 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
0.04426607 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04426607 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19068639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:11:29
-
Crispo, E.: ¬A new index to use in conjunction with the h-index to account for an author's relative contribution to publications with high impact (2015)
0.07
0.06692278 = sum of:
0.04754733 = product of:
0.19018932 = sum of:
0.19018932 = weight(_text_:author's in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19018932 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
0.36593494 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.51973534 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.019375449 = product of:
0.058126345 = sum of:
0.058126345 = weight(_text_:h in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058126345 = score(doc=2264,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.42965335 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The h-index was devised to represent a scholar's contributions to his field with respect to the number of publications and citations. It does not, however, take into consideration the scholar's position in the authorship list. I recommend a new supplementary index to score academics, representing the relative contribution to the papers with impact, be reported alongside the h-index. I call this index the AP-index, and it is simply defined as the average position in which an academic appears in authorship lists, on articles that factor in to that academic's h-index.
- Object
- h-index
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.06
0.06387384 = product of:
0.12774768 = sum of:
0.12774768 = sum of:
0.050109047 = weight(_text_:c in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050109047 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.025994891 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025994891 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.051643748 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051643748 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19068639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 14:04:09
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.1, S.1-8
-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.06
0.06259909 = product of:
0.12519819 = sum of:
0.12519819 = sum of:
0.03579218 = weight(_text_:c in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03579218 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.05251761 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05251761 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.036888395 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036888395 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19068639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 19:22:13
- Object
- h-index
-
Burrell, Q.L.: Formulae for the h-index : a lack of robustness in Lotkaian informetrics? (2013)
0.06
0.055609077 = sum of:
0.040754855 = product of:
0.16301942 = sum of:
0.16301942 = weight(_text_:author's in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16301942 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
0.36593494 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 977, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=977)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.014854223 = product of:
0.044562668 = sum of:
0.044562668 = weight(_text_:h in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044562668 = score(doc=977,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 977, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=977)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In one of the first attempts at providing a mathematical framework for the Hirsch index, Egghe and Rousseau (2006) assumed the standard Lotka model for an author's citation distribution to derive a delightfully simple closed formula for his/her h-index. More recently, the same authors (Egghe & Rousseau, 2012b) have presented a new (implicit) formula based on the so-called shifted Lotka function to allow for the objection that the original model makes no allowance for papers receiving zero citations. Here it is shown, through a small empirical study, that the formulae actually give very similar results whether or not the uncited papers are included. However, and more important, it is found that they both seriously underestimate the true h-index, and we suggest that the reason for this is that this is a context-the citation distribution of an author-in which straightforward Lotkaian informetrics is inappropriate. Indeed, the analysis suggests that even if we restrict attention to the upper tail of the citation distribution, a simple Lotka/Pareto-like model can give misleading results.
- Object
- h-index
-
Zhang, C.; Bu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Xu, J.: Understanding scientific collaboration : homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment (2018)
0.06
0.055071726 = sum of:
0.040754855 = product of:
0.16301942 = sum of:
0.16301942 = weight(_text_:author's in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16301942 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
0.36593494 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.014316872 = product of:
0.042950615 = sum of:
0.042950615 = weight(_text_:c in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042950615 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4011, 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=4011)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Scientific collaboration is essential in solving problems and breeding innovation. Coauthor network analysis has been utilized to study scholars' collaborations for a long time, but these studies have not simultaneously taken different collaboration features into consideration. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to analyze the differences in possibilities that two authors will cooperate as seen from the effects of homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) are applied in this research. We find that different types of publications one author has written play diverse roles in his/her collaborations. An author's tendency to form new collaborations with her/his coauthors' collaborators is strong, where the more coauthors one author had before, the more new collaborators he/she will attract. We demonstrate that considering the authors' attributes and homophily effects as well as the transitivity and preferential attachment effects of the coauthorship network in which they are embedded helps us gain a comprehensive understanding of scientific collaboration.
-
Chen, C.: Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization (2003)
0.05
0.047968626 = sum of:
0.038424045 = product of:
0.15369618 = sum of:
0.15369618 = weight(_text_:author's in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15369618 = score(doc=2213,freq=4.0), product of:
0.36593494 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.42000958 = fieldWeight in 2213, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2213)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.009544581 = product of:
0.028633744 = sum of:
0.028633744 = weight(_text_:c in 2213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028633744 = score(doc=2213,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 2213, 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=2213)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: JASIST 55(2004) no.4, S.363-365 (J.W. Schneider): "Theories and methods for mapping scientific frontiers have existed for decades-especially within quantitative studies of science. This book investigates mapping scientific frontiers from the perspective of visual thinking and visual exploration (visual communication). The central theme is construction of visual-spatial representations that may convey insights into the dynamic structure of scientific frontiers. The author's previous book, Information Visualisation and Virtual Environments (1999), also concerns some of the ideas behind and possible benefits of visual communication. This new book takes a special focus an knowledge visualization, particularly in relation to science literature. The book is not a technical tutorial as the focus is an principles of visual communication and ways that may reveal the dynamics of scientific frontiers. The new approach to science mapping presented is the culmination of different approaches from several disciplines, such as philosophy of science, information retrieval, scientometrics, domain analysis, and information visualization. The book therefore addresses an audience with different disciplinary backgrounds and tries to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Chapter 1, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, introduces a range of examples that illustrate fundamental issues concerning visual communication in general and science mapping in particular. Chapter 2, Mapping the Universe, focuses an the basic principles of cartography for visual communication. Chapter 3, Mapping the Mind, turns the attention inward and explores the design of mind maps, maps that represent our thoughts, experience, and knowledge. Chapter 4, Enabling Techniques for Science Mapping, essentially outlines the author's basic approach to science mapping.
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Liu, J.S.: ¬A new approach for main path analysis : decay in knowledge diffusion (2016)
0.05
0.045624174 = product of:
0.09124835 = sum of:
0.09124835 = sum of:
0.03579218 = weight(_text_:c in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03579218 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2649, 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=2649)
0.01856778 = weight(_text_:h in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01856778 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.036888395 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036888395 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19068639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:23:00
-
Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023)
0.05
0.045624174 = product of:
0.09124835 = sum of:
0.09124835 = sum of:
0.03579218 = weight(_text_:c in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03579218 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
0.01856778 = weight(_text_:h in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01856778 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
0.036888395 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036888395 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19068639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.
- Date
- 21. 3.2023 19:22:02
-
Malesios, C.: Some variations on the standard theoretical models for the h-index : a comparative analysis (2015)
0.04
0.042997085 = product of:
0.08599417 = sum of:
0.08599417 = product of:
0.12899125 = sum of:
0.0708649 = weight(_text_:c in 2267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0708649 = score(doc=2267,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.3772787 = fieldWeight in 2267, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2267)
0.058126345 = weight(_text_:h in 2267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058126345 = score(doc=2267,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.42965335 = fieldWeight in 2267, 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=2267)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
- Object
- h-index
-
Chang, K.-C.; Zhou, W.; Zhang, S.; Yuan, C,-C.: Threshold effects of the patent H-index in the relationship between patent citations and market value (2015)
0.04
0.042990185 = product of:
0.08598037 = sum of:
0.08598037 = product of:
0.12897055 = sum of:
0.07439265 = weight(_text_:c in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07439265 = score(doc=2344,freq=6.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.3960601 = fieldWeight in 2344, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2344)
0.054577902 = weight(_text_:h in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054577902 = score(doc=2344,freq=12.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 2344, 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=2344)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study employs a panel threshold regression model to test whether the patent h-index has a threshold effect on the relationship between patent citations and market value in the pharmaceutical industry. It aims to bridge the gap in extant research on this topic. This study demonstrates that the patent h-index has a triple threshold effect on the relationship between patent citations and market value. When the patent h-index is less than or equal to the lowest threshold, 4, there is a positive relationship between patent citations and market value. This study indicates that the first regime (where the patent h-index is less than or equal to 4) is optimal, because this is where the extent of the positive relationship between patent citations and market value is the greatest.
- Object
- h-index
-
Krattenthaler, C.: Was der h-Index wirklich aussagt (2021)
0.04
0.041232534 = product of:
0.08246507 = sum of:
0.08246507 = product of:
0.123697594 = sum of:
0.057267487 = weight(_text_:c in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057267487 = score(doc=407,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 407, 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=407)
0.06643011 = weight(_text_:h in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06643011 = score(doc=407,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 407, 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=407)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Diese Note legt dar, dass der sogenannte h-Index (Hirschs bibliometrischer Index) im Wesentlichen dieselbe Information wiedergibt wie die Gesamtanzahl von Zitationen von Publikationen einer Autorin oder eines Autors, also ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index ist. Dies basiert auf einem faszinierenden Satz der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, der hier ebenfalls erläutert wird.
- Content
- Vgl.: DOI: 10.1515/dmvm-2021-0050. Auch abgedruckt u.d.T.: 'Der h-Index - "ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index"' in Open Password Nr. 1007 vom 06.12.2021 unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzM3NCwiZDI3MzMzOTEwMzUzIiwwLDAsMzQ4LDFd.
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2021, H.3, S.124-128
-
Li, T.-C.: Reference sources in periodicals : research note (1995)
0.04
0.03876297 = product of:
0.07752594 = sum of:
0.07752594 = product of:
0.116288915 = sum of:
0.057267487 = weight(_text_:c in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057267487 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 5092, 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=5092)
0.05902143 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05902143 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19068639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, 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=5092)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬The Hirsch index of a shifted Lotka function and its relation with the impact factor (2012)
0.04
0.037927758 = product of:
0.075855516 = sum of:
0.075855516 = product of:
0.11378327 = sum of:
0.050109047 = weight(_text_:c in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050109047 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 243, 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=243)
0.06367422 = weight(_text_:h in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06367422 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = 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)
0.6666667 = 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
-
Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010)
0.04
0.036598206 = product of:
0.07319641 = sum of:
0.07319641 = product of:
0.10979462 = sum of:
0.042950615 = weight(_text_:c in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042950615 = score(doc=3418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 3418, 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=3418)
0.066844 = weight(_text_:h in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066844 = score(doc=3418,freq=18.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.49409178 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
- Object
- h-index
-
H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008)
0.03
0.03440565 = product of:
0.0688113 = sum of:
0.0688113 = product of:
0.103216946 = sum of:
0.05895087 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05895087 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = 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)
0.04426607 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04426607 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19068639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = 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
0.0309244 = product of:
0.0618488 = sum of:
0.0618488 = product of:
0.0927732 = sum of:
0.042950615 = weight(_text_:c in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042950615 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = 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)
0.049822584 = weight(_text_:h in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049822584 = score(doc=780,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = 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)
0.03
0.029576626 = product of:
0.05915325 = sum of:
0.05915325 = product of:
0.08872987 = sum of:
0.029708447 = weight(_text_:h in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029708447 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = 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)
0.05902143 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05902143 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19068639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = 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)
0.03
0.029576626 = product of:
0.05915325 = sum of:
0.05915325 = product of:
0.08872987 = sum of:
0.029708447 = weight(_text_:h in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029708447 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = 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)
0.05902143 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05902143 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19068639 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = 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
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Huang, M.-H.; Chen, D.-Z.: ¬A two-dimensional approach to performance evaluation for a large number of research institutions (2012)
0.03
0.029171094 = product of:
0.05834219 = sum of:
0.05834219 = product of:
0.08751328 = sum of:
0.042950615 = weight(_text_:c in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042950615 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18783171 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 58, 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=58)
0.044562668 = weight(_text_:h in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044562668 = score(doc=58,freq=8.0), product of:
0.13528661 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.05445336 = queryNorm
0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We characterize the research performance of a large number of institutions in a two-dimensional coordinate system based on the shapes of their h-cores so that their relative performance can be conveniently observed and compared. The 2D distribution of these institutions is then utilized (1) to categorize the institutions into a number of qualitative groups revealing the nature of their performance, and (2) to determine the position of a specific institution among the set of institutions. The method is compared with some major h-type indices and tested with empirical data using clinical medicine as an illustrative case. The method is extensible to the research performance evaluation at other aggregation levels such as researchers, journals, departments, and nations.
