Search (147 results, page 1 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Huber, J.C.: ¬A new method for analyzing scientific productivity (2001) 0.09 
    0.08938973 = sum of:
  0.030347751 = product of:
    0.121391006 = sum of:
      0.121391006 = weight(_text_:author's in 6845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.121391006 = score(doc=6845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32698837 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04865787 = queryNorm
          0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 6845, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6845)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.059041977 = product of:
    0.118083954 = sum of:
      0.118083954 = weight(_text_:j.c in 6845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.118083954 = score(doc=6845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.32250354 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04865787 = queryNorm
          0.3661478 = fieldWeight in 6845, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6845)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Previously, a new method for measuring scientific productivity was demonstrated for authors in mathematical logic and some subareas of 19th-century physics. The purpose of this article is to apply this new method to other fields to support its general applicability. We show that the method yields the same results for modern physicists, biologists, psychologists, inventors, and composers. That is, each individual's production is constant over time, and the time-period fluctuations follow the Poisson distribution. However, the productivity (e.g., papers per year) varies widely across individuals. We show that the distribution of productivity does not follow the normal (i.e., bell curve) distribution, but rather follows the exponential distribution. Thus, most authors produce at the lowest rate and very few authors produce at the higher rates. We also show that the career duration of individuals follows the exponential distribution. Thus, most authors have a very short career and very few have a long career. The principal advantage of the new method is that the detail structure of author productivity can be examined, such as trends, etc. Another advantage is that information science studies have guidance for the length of time interval being examined and estimating when an author's entire body of work has been recorded.
  2. Korevaar, J.C.; Moed, H.F.: Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of mathematics (1996) 0.05 
    0.047233585 = product of:
  0.09446717 = sum of:
    0.09446717 = product of:
      0.18893434 = sum of:
        0.18893434 = weight(_text_:j.c in 6692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18893434 = score(doc=6692,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32250354 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.58583647 = fieldWeight in 6692, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6692)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  3. Huber, J.C.; Wagner-Döbler, R.: Using the Mann-Whitney test on informetric data (2003) 0.05 
    0.047233585 = product of:
  0.09446717 = sum of:
    0.09446717 = product of:
      0.18893434 = sum of:
        0.18893434 = weight(_text_:j.c in 1686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18893434 = score(doc=1686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32250354 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.58583647 = fieldWeight in 1686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  4. Huber, J.C.: ¬A new model that generated Lotka's law (2002) 0.04 
    0.041329388 = product of:
  0.082658775 = sum of:
    0.082658775 = product of:
      0.16531755 = sum of:
        0.16531755 = weight(_text_:j.c in 248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16531755 = score(doc=248,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32250354 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.5126069 = fieldWeight in 248, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=248)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Shin, J.C.: How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts : fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines (2011) 0.04 
    0.041329388 = product of:
  0.082658775 = sum of:
    0.082658775 = product of:
      0.16531755 = sum of:
        0.16531755 = weight(_text_:j.c in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16531755 = score(doc=4466,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32250354 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.5126069 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  6. Steele, T.W.; Stier, J.C.: ¬The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences : a forestry case study (2000) 0.04 
    0.03542519 = product of:
  0.07085038 = sum of:
    0.07085038 = product of:
      0.14170076 = sum of:
        0.14170076 = weight(_text_:j.c in 4592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14170076 = score(doc=4592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32250354 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.43937737 = fieldWeight in 4592, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  7. González-Alcaide, G.; Castelló-Cogollos, L.; Navarro-Molina, C.; Aleixandre-Benavent, R.; Valderrama-Zurián, J.C.: Library and information science research areas : analysis of journal articles in LISA (2008) 0.04 
    0.03542519 = product of:
  0.07085038 = sum of:
    0.07085038 = product of:
      0.14170076 = sum of:
        0.14170076 = weight(_text_:j.c in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14170076 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32250354 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.43937737 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  8. Guan, J.C.; Gao, X.: Exploring the h-index at patent level (2009) 0.03 
    0.029520988 = product of:
  0.059041977 = sum of:
    0.059041977 = product of:
      0.118083954 = sum of:
        0.118083954 = weight(_text_:j.c in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.118083954 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.32250354 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.3661478 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.627983 = idf(docFreq=158, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  9. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.03 
    0.026369879 = product of:
  0.052739758 = sum of:
    0.052739758 = product of:
      0.105479516 = sum of:
        0.105479516 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105479516 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17039157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
  10. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.026369879 = product of:
  0.052739758 = sum of:
    0.052739758 = product of:
      0.105479516 = sum of:
        0.105479516 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105479516 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17039157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  11. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.03 
    0.026369879 = product of:
  0.052739758 = sum of:
    0.052739758 = product of:
      0.105479516 = sum of:
        0.105479516 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.105479516 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17039157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
  12. Ahlgren, P.; Järvelin, K.: Measuring impact of twelve information scientists using the DCI index (2010) 0.03 
    0.02575092 = product of:
  0.05150184 = sum of:
    0.05150184 = product of:
      0.20600736 = sum of:
        0.20600736 = weight(_text_:author's in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20600736 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32698837 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  13. Danell, R.: Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record? (2011) 0.03 
    0.02575092 = product of:
  0.05150184 = sum of:
    0.05150184 = product of:
      0.20600736 = sum of:
        0.20600736 = weight(_text_:author's in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20600736 = score(doc=4131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32698837 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = 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.
  14. Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998) 0.02 
    0.0233079 = product of:
  0.0466158 = sum of:
    0.0466158 = product of:
      0.0932316 = sum of:
        0.0932316 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0932316 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17039157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:22:35
  15. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.0233079 = product of:
  0.0466158 = sum of:
    0.0466158 = product of:
      0.0932316 = sum of:
        0.0932316 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0932316 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17039157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  16. Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994) 0.02 
    0.023073643 = product of:
  0.046147287 = sum of:
    0.046147287 = product of:
      0.092294574 = sum of:
        0.092294574 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092294574 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17039157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
  17. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.02 
    0.023073643 = product of:
  0.046147287 = sum of:
    0.046147287 = product of:
      0.092294574 = sum of:
        0.092294574 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092294574 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17039157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  18. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.02 
    0.023073643 = product of:
  0.046147287 = sum of:
    0.046147287 = product of:
      0.092294574 = sum of:
        0.092294574 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092294574 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17039157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
  19. Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004) 0.02 
    0.0214591 = product of:
  0.0429182 = sum of:
    0.0429182 = product of:
      0.1716728 = sum of:
        0.1716728 = weight(_text_:author's in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1716728 = score(doc=2266,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32698837 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = queryNorm
            0.52501196 = fieldWeight in 2266, 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=2266)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
  20. Hyland, K.: Self-citation and self-reference : credibility and promotion in academic publication (2003) 0.02 
    0.0214591 = product of:
  0.0429182 = sum of:
    0.0429182 = product of:
      0.1716728 = sum of:
        0.1716728 = weight(_text_:author's in 5156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1716728 = score(doc=5156,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.32698837 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04865787 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 138
  • d 8
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 144
  • m 3
  • el 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications