Search (444 results, page 1 of 23)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Ahlgren, P.; Järvelin, K.: Measuring impact of twelve information scientists using the DCI index (2010) 0.07 
    0.067224436 = sum of:
  0.053098172 = product of:
    0.21239269 = sum of:
      0.21239269 = weight(_text_:author's in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21239269 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.33712357 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = queryNorm
          0.63001436 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.014126265 = product of:
    0.042378794 = sum of:
      0.042378794 = weight(_text_:k in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042378794 = score(doc=3593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = queryNorm
          0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 3593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3593)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index has recently been proposed for research evaluation. In the present work an earlier dataset by Cronin and Meho (2007) is reanalyzed, with the aim of exemplifying the salient features of the DCI index. We apply the index on, and compare our results to, the outcomes of the Cronin-Meho (2007) study. Both authors and their top publications are used as units of analysis, which suggests that, by adjusting the parameters of evaluation according to the needs of research evaluation, the DCI index delivers data on an author's (or publication's) lifetime impact or current impact at the time of evaluation on an author's (or publication's) capability of inviting citations from highly cited later publications as an indication of impact, and on the relative impact across a set of authors (or publications) over their lifetime or currently.
  2. 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) 0.06 
    0.061653707 = sum of:
  0.04380376 = product of:
    0.17521504 = sum of:
      0.17521504 = weight(_text_:author's in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17521504 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33712357 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = 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)
  0.017849948 = product of:
    0.053549845 = sum of:
      0.053549845 = weight(_text_:h in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053549845 = score(doc=2264,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = 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
  3. ¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012) 0.06 
    0.05609463 = product of:
  0.11218926 = sum of:
    0.11218926 = sum of:
      0.042378794 = weight(_text_:k in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042378794 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = queryNorm
          0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.029029623 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029029623 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = queryNorm
          0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.040780842 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040780842 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17567296 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:35:26
    Footnote
    Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.157-182
  4. Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003) 0.06 
    0.056020364 = sum of:
  0.044248477 = product of:
    0.1769939 = sum of:
      0.1769939 = weight(_text_:author's in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1769939 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.33712357 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = queryNorm
          0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.011771888 = product of:
    0.035315663 = sum of:
      0.035315663 = weight(_text_:k in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035315663 = score(doc=5156,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = queryNorm
          0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 5156, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5156)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Hyland examines self referencing practices by analyzing their textual uses in 240 randomly chosen research papers and 800 abstracts across 80 expert selected journals from 1997 and 1998 in eight disciplines, as a key to their author's assumptions as to their own role in the research process and to the practices of their disciplines. Scanned texts produced a corpus of nearly 1.5 million words which was searched using WordPilot for first person pronouns and all mentions of an author's previous work. There were 6,689 instances of self reference in the papers and 459 in the abstracts; on the average 28 cases per paper, 17% of which were self citations. There was one self mention in every two abstracts. Nearly 70% of self reference and mention occurred in humanities and social science papers, but biologists employed the most self citation overall and 12% of hard science citations were found to be self citations. Interviews indicated that self citation was deemed important in establishing authority by fitting oneself into the research framework. Self mention arises in four main contexts: stating the goal or the structure of the paper, explaining a procedure, stating results or a claim, and elaborating an argument.
  5. Burrell, Q.L.: Formulae for the h-index : a lack of robustness in Lotkaian informetrics? (2013) 0.05 
    0.051230777 = sum of:
  0.03754608 = product of:
    0.15018432 = sum of:
      0.15018432 = weight(_text_:author's in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15018432 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.33712357 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = 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)
  0.0136846965 = product of:
    0.04105409 = sum of:
      0.04105409 = weight(_text_:h in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04105409 = score(doc=977,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05016605 = 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
  6. Järvelin, K.; Persson, O.: ¬The DCI-index : discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation (2008) 0.04 
    0.035759874 = product of:
  0.07151975 = sum of:
    0.07151975 = product of:
      0.10727961 = sum of:
        0.07991022 = weight(_text_:k in 2332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07991022 = score(doc=2332,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.44622225 = fieldWeight in 2332, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2332)
        0.027369393 = weight(_text_:h in 2332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027369393 = score(doc=2332,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 2332, 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=2332)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The article by K. Järvelin & O. Persson published in JASIST 59(9), The DCI-Index: Discounted Cumulated Impact-Based Research Evaluation, (pp. 1433-1440) contains an unfortunate error in one of its formulas, Equation 3. The present paper gives the correction and an example of impact analysis based on the corrected formula.
    Object
    h-index
  7. Stock, W.: Informetrische Vermessung der Forschung und Entwicklung eines Landes : beispielhafte Resultate und Probleme (1992) 0.03 
    0.03494769 = product of:
  0.06989538 = sum of:
    0.06989538 = product of:
      0.104843065 = sum of:
        0.070631325 = weight(_text_:k in 342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070631325 = score(doc=342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.39440846 = fieldWeight in 342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=342)
        0.03421174 = weight(_text_:h in 342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03421174 = score(doc=342,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 342, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=342)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Information und Dokumentation in den 90er Jahren: neue Herausforderung, neue Technologien. Deutscher Dokumentartag 1991, Universität Ulm, 30.9.-2.10.1991. Hrsg.: W. Neubauer u. K.-H. Meier
  8. Bannister, A.; Hulek, K.; Teschke, O.: ¬Das Zitationsverhalten in mathematischen Arbeiten : einige Anmerkungen (2017) 0.03 
    0.03494769 = product of:
  0.06989538 = sum of:
    0.06989538 = product of:
      0.104843065 = sum of:
        0.070631325 = weight(_text_:k in 4499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070631325 = score(doc=4499,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.39440846 = fieldWeight in 4499, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4499)
        0.03421174 = weight(_text_:h in 4499) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03421174 = score(doc=4499,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 4499, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4499)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2017, H.4, S.208-214
  9. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.03 
    0.031696767 = product of:
  0.06339353 = sum of:
    0.06339353 = product of:
      0.0950903 = sum of:
        0.054309454 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054309454 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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)
        0.040780842 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040780842 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17567296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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
  10. 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) 0.03 
    0.030886527 = product of:
  0.061773054 = sum of:
    0.061773054 = product of:
      0.09265958 = sum of:
        0.042378794 = weight(_text_:k in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042378794 = score(doc=2344,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 2344, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2344)
        0.050280783 = weight(_text_:h in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050280783 = score(doc=2344,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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
  11. Stvilia, B.; Hinnant, C.C.; Schindler, K.; Worrall, A.; Burnett, G.; Burnett, K.; Kazmer, M.M.; Marty, P.F.: Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab (2011) 0.03 
    0.027975976 = product of:
  0.055951953 = sum of:
    0.055951953 = product of:
      0.08392793 = sum of:
        0.04994389 = weight(_text_:k in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04994389 = score(doc=4191,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.2788889 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
        0.03398404 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03398404 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17567296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:19:42
  12. Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010) 0.03 
    0.027719881 = product of:
  0.055439763 = sum of:
    0.055439763 = product of:
      0.08315964 = sum of:
        0.042378794 = weight(_text_:k in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042378794 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
        0.040780842 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040780842 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17567296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    28. 9.2010 12:54:22
  13. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010) 0.03 
    0.027455583 = product of:
  0.054911166 = sum of:
    0.054911166 = product of:
      0.08236675 = sum of:
        0.048382707 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048382707 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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)
        0.03398404 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03398404 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17567296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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
  14. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.03 
    0.02724795 = product of:
  0.0544959 = sum of:
    0.0544959 = product of:
      0.08174385 = sum of:
        0.027369393 = weight(_text_:h in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027369393 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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)
        0.05437446 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05437446 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17567296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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
  15. 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 
    0.02724795 = product of:
  0.0544959 = sum of:
    0.0544959 = product of:
      0.08174385 = sum of:
        0.027369393 = weight(_text_:h in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027369393 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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)
        0.05437446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05437446 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17567296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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
  16. Mayr, P.: Information Retrieval-Mehrwertdienste für Digitale Bibliotheken: : Crosskonkordanzen und Bradfordizing (2010) 0.03 
    0.026819903 = product of:
  0.053639807 = sum of:
    0.053639807 = product of:
      0.08045971 = sum of:
        0.059932664 = weight(_text_:k in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059932664 = score(doc=4910,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.33466667 = fieldWeight in 4910, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4910)
        0.020527044 = weight(_text_:h in 4910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020527044 = score(doc=4910,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 4910, 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=4910)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Classification
    BAHU (FH K)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: iwp 62(2011) H.6/7, S. 323-324 (D. Lewandowski)
    GHBS
    BAHU (FH K)
  17. Danell, R.: Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record? (2011) 0.03 
    0.026549086 = product of:
  0.053098172 = sum of:
    0.053098172 = product of:
      0.21239269 = sum of:
        0.21239269 = weight(_text_:author's in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21239269 = score(doc=4131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.33712357 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.63001436 = fieldWeight in 4131, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4131)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Many countries are moving towards research policies that emphasize excellence; consequently; they develop evaluation systems to identify universities, research groups, and researchers that can be said to be "excellent." Such active research policy strategies, in which evaluations are used to concentrate resources, are based on an unsubstantiated assumption that researchers' track records are indicative of their future research performance. In this study, information on authors' track records (previous publication volume and previous citation rate) is used to predict the impact of their articles. The study concludes that, to a certain degree, the impact of scientific work can be predicted using information on how often an author's previous publications have been cited. The relationship between past performance and the citation rate of articles is strongest at the high end of the citation distribution. The implications of these results are discussed in the context of a cumulative advantage process.
  18. Järvelin, K.; Persson, O.: ¬The DCI index : discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation (2008) 0.03 
    0.026524043 = product of:
  0.053048085 = sum of:
    0.053048085 = product of:
      0.079572126 = sum of:
        0.04994389 = weight(_text_:k in 2694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04994389 = score(doc=2694,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.2788889 = fieldWeight in 2694, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2694)
        0.029628236 = weight(_text_:h in 2694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029628236 = score(doc=2694,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.23772003 = fieldWeight in 2694, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2694)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Research evaluation is increasingly popular and important among research funding bodies and science policy makers. Various indicators have been proposed to evaluate the standing of individual scientists, institutions, journals, or countries. A simple and popular one among the indicators is the h-index, the Hirsch index (Hirsch 2005), which is an indicator for lifetime achievement of a scholar. Several other indicators have been proposed to complement or balance the h-index. However, these indicators have no conception of aging. The AR-index (Jin et al. 2007) incorporates aging but divides the received citation counts by the raw age of the publication. Consequently, the decay of a publication is very steep and insensitive to disciplinary differences. In addition, we believe that a publication becomes outdated only when it is no longer cited, not because of its age. Finally, all indicators treat citations as equally material when one might reasonably think that a citation from a heavily cited publication should weigh more than a citation froma non-cited or little-cited publication.We propose a new indicator, the Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index, which devalues old citations in a smooth way. It rewards an author for receiving new citations even if the publication is old. Further, it allows weighting of the citations by the citation weight of the citing publication. DCI can be used to calculate research performance on the basis of the h-core of a scholar or any other publication data.
    Content
    Erratum in: Järvelin, K., O. Persson: The DCI-index: discounted cumulated impact-based research evaluation. Erratum re. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.14, S.2350-2352.
  19. McKeown, K.; Daume III, H.; Chaturvedi, S.; Paparrizos, J.; Thadani, K.; Barrio, P.; Biran, O.; Bothe, S.; Collins, M.; Fleischmann, K.R.; Gravano, L.; Jha, R.; King, B.; McInerney, K.; Moon, T.; Neelakantan, A.; O'Seaghdha, D.; Radev, D.; Templeton, C.; Teufel, S.: Predicting the impact of scientific concepts using full-text features (2016) 0.03 
    0.026091464 = product of:
  0.052182928 = sum of:
    0.052182928 = product of:
      0.07827439 = sum of:
        0.06116852 = weight(_text_:k in 3153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06116852 = score(doc=3153,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17908166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.34156775 = fieldWeight in 3153, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3153)
        0.01710587 = weight(_text_:h in 3153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01710587 = score(doc=3153,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 3153, 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=3153)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  20. 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) 0.03 
    0.025294898 = product of:
  0.050589796 = sum of:
    0.050589796 = product of:
      0.07588469 = sum of:
        0.041900653 = weight(_text_:h in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041900653 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.124635 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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)
        0.03398404 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03398404 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17567296 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05016605 = 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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 348
  • d 91
  • chi 1
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 427
  • m 10
  • el 9
  • s 5
  • r 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications