Search (380 results, page 1 of 19)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. 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 
    0.071738385 = sum of:
  0.04452351 = product of:
    0.17809404 = sum of:
      0.17809404 = weight(_text_:author's in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.17809404 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34266296 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
  0.027214874 = product of:
    0.054429747 = sum of:
      0.054429747 = weight(_text_:h in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054429747 = score(doc=2264,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  2. Burrell, Q.L.: Formulae for the h-index : a lack of robustness in Lotkaian informetrics? (2013) 0.06 
    0.059027344 = sum of:
  0.03816301 = product of:
    0.15265204 = sum of:
      0.15265204 = weight(_text_:author's in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15265204 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34266296 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
  0.020864332 = product of:
    0.041728664 = sum of:
      0.041728664 = weight(_text_:h in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041728664 = score(doc=977,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  3. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.05 
    0.048326388 = product of:
  0.096652776 = sum of:
    0.096652776 = sum of:
      0.05520184 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05520184 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
      0.041450933 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041450933 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
  0.5 = 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
  4. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010) 0.04 
    0.041860074 = product of:
  0.08372015 = sum of:
    0.08372015 = sum of:
      0.049177706 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049177706 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
      0.034542445 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034542445 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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
  5. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.04 
    0.041543514 = product of:
  0.08308703 = sum of:
    0.08308703 = sum of:
      0.027819112 = weight(_text_:h in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027819112 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
      0.05526791 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05526791 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406
  6. Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007) 0.04 
    0.041543514 = product of:
  0.08308703 = sum of:
    0.08308703 = sum of:
      0.027819112 = weight(_text_:h in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027819112 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
      0.05526791 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05526791 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30.12.2007 11:22:39
  7. 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) 0.04 
    0.038565792 = product of:
  0.077131584 = sum of:
    0.077131584 = sum of:
      0.042589143 = weight(_text_:h in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042589143 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
      0.034542445 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034542445 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
  0.5 = 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
  8. Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013) 0.04 
    0.03635057 = product of:
  0.07270114 = sum of:
    0.07270114 = sum of:
      0.024341721 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024341721 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
      0.04835942 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04835942 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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
  9. ¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012) 0.04 
    0.03547878 = product of:
  0.07095756 = sum of:
    0.07095756 = sum of:
      0.029506622 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029506622 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
      0.041450933 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041450933 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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
  10. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.03 
    0.031157631 = product of:
  0.062315263 = sum of:
    0.062315263 = sum of:
      0.020864332 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020864332 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = queryNorm
          0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
      0.041450933 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041450933 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=201)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  11. Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012) 0.03 
    0.031157631 = product of:
  0.062315263 = sum of:
    0.062315263 = sum of:
      0.020864332 = weight(_text_:h in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020864332 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = queryNorm
          0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
      0.041450933 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041450933 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2012 19:23:32
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.2, S.71-80
  12. Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014) 0.03 
    0.031157631 = product of:
  0.062315263 = sum of:
    0.062315263 = sum of:
      0.020864332 = weight(_text_:h in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020864332 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = queryNorm
          0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
      0.041450933 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041450933 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:12:35
  13. 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) 0.03 
    0.031157631 = product of:
  0.062315263 = sum of:
    0.062315263 = sum of:
      0.020864332 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020864332 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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)
      0.041450933 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041450933 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = 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
  14. Ntuli, H.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Chang, T.; Pouris, A.: Does research output cause economic growth or vice versa? : evidence from 34 OECD countries (2015) 0.03 
    0.031157631 = product of:
  0.062315263 = sum of:
    0.062315263 = sum of:
      0.020864332 = weight(_text_:h in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020864332 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = queryNorm
          0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
      0.041450933 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041450933 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    8. 7.2015 22:00:42
  15. Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986) 0.03 
    0.027633956 = product of:
  0.05526791 = sum of:
    0.05526791 = product of:
      0.11053582 = sum of:
        0.11053582 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11053582 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05099035 = 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
  16. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.03 
    0.027633956 = product of:
  0.05526791 = sum of:
    0.05526791 = product of:
      0.11053582 = sum of:
        0.11053582 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11053582 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05099035 = 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
  17. Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987) 0.03 
    0.027633956 = product of:
  0.05526791 = sum of:
    0.05526791 = product of:
      0.11053582 = sum of:
        0.11053582 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11053582 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05099035 = 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
  18. Ahlgren, P.; Järvelin, K.: Measuring impact of twelve information scientists using the DCI index (2010) 0.03 
    0.026985323 = product of:
  0.053970646 = sum of:
    0.053970646 = product of:
      0.21588258 = sum of:
        0.21588258 = weight(_text_:author's in 3593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21588258 = score(doc=3593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.34266296 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05099035 = 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.
  19. Danell, R.: Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author's track record? (2011) 0.03 
    0.026985323 = product of:
  0.053970646 = sum of:
    0.053970646 = product of:
      0.21588258 = sum of:
        0.21588258 = weight(_text_:author's in 4131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.21588258 = score(doc=4131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.34266296 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05099035 = 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.
  20. Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007) 0.03 
    0.025964696 = product of:
  0.051929392 = sum of:
    0.051929392 = sum of:
      0.017386945 = weight(_text_:h in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017386945 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12668294 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = queryNorm
          0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
      0.034542445 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034542445 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17855953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05099035 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=875)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    23.12.2007 19:22:21
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 10(2007) H.2, S.xxx-xxx

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 291
  • d 84
  • chi 1
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 365
  • el 9
  • m 9
  • s 5
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications