-
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)
0.05
0.04961161 = sum of:
0.025881562 = product of:
0.15528937 = sum of:
0.15528937 = weight(_text_:author's in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15528937 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
0.29878548 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.023730047 = product of:
0.047460094 = sum of:
0.047460094 = weight(_text_:h in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047460094 = score(doc=2264,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008)
0.04
0.042138256 = product of:
0.08427651 = sum of:
0.08427651 = sum of:
0.048133317 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048133317 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.0361432 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0361432 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Burrell, Q.L.: Formulae for the h-index : a lack of robustness in Lotkaian informetrics? (2013)
0.04
0.04037688 = sum of:
0.022184197 = product of:
0.13310517 = sum of:
0.13310517 = weight(_text_:author's in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13310517 = score(doc=977,freq=2.0), product of:
0.29878548 = queryWeight, product of:
6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.018192684 = product of:
0.03638537 = sum of:
0.03638537 = weight(_text_:h in 977) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03638537 = score(doc=977,freq=8.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.04
0.03649995 = product of:
0.0729999 = sum of:
0.0729999 = sum of:
0.04288057 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04288057 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.030119333 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030119333 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.04
0.036223922 = product of:
0.072447844 = sum of:
0.072447844 = sum of:
0.024256913 = weight(_text_:h in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024256913 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.048190933 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048190933 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
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
0.036223922 = product of:
0.072447844 = sum of:
0.072447844 = sum of:
0.024256913 = weight(_text_:h in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024256913 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.048190933 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048190933 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
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
0.033627495 = product of:
0.06725499 = sum of:
0.06725499 = sum of:
0.03713566 = weight(_text_:h in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03713566 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.030119333 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030119333 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.03
0.031695932 = product of:
0.063391864 = sum of:
0.063391864 = sum of:
0.021224799 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021224799 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.042167064 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042167064 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.03
0.030935768 = product of:
0.061871536 = sum of:
0.061871536 = sum of:
0.02572834 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02572834 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.0361432 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0361432 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.03
0.027167942 = product of:
0.054335885 = sum of:
0.054335885 = sum of:
0.018192684 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018192684 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.0361432 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0361432 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012)
0.03
0.027167942 = product of:
0.054335885 = sum of:
0.054335885 = sum of:
0.018192684 = weight(_text_:h in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018192684 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.0361432 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0361432 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.03
0.027167942 = product of:
0.054335885 = sum of:
0.054335885 = sum of:
0.018192684 = weight(_text_:h in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018192684 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.0361432 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0361432 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
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
0.027167942 = product of:
0.054335885 = sum of:
0.054335885 = sum of:
0.018192684 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018192684 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.0361432 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0361432 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
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
0.027167942 = product of:
0.054335885 = sum of:
0.054335885 = sum of:
0.018192684 = weight(_text_:h in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018192684 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.0361432 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0361432 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Chu, H.: Research in image indexing and retrieval as reflected in the literature (2001)
0.03
0.025613923 = sum of:
0.015001522 = product of:
0.09000913 = sum of:
0.09000913 = weight(_text_:bilder in 6975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09000913 = score(doc=6975,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22747406 = queryWeight, product of:
5.116248 = idf(docFreq=720, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = queryNorm
0.39568964 = fieldWeight in 6975, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.116248 = idf(docFreq=720, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6975)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
0.010612399 = product of:
0.021224799 = sum of:
0.021224799 = weight(_text_:h in 6975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021224799 = score(doc=6975,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 6975, 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=6975)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Form
- Bilder
-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.02
0.024095466 = product of:
0.048190933 = sum of:
0.048190933 = product of:
0.096381865 = sum of:
0.096381865 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096381865 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.02
0.024095466 = product of:
0.048190933 = sum of:
0.048190933 = product of:
0.096381865 = sum of:
0.096381865 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096381865 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.02
0.024095466 = product of:
0.048190933 = sum of:
0.048190933 = product of:
0.096381865 = sum of:
0.096381865 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.096381865 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007)
0.02
0.022639953 = product of:
0.045279905 = sum of:
0.045279905 = sum of:
0.015160571 = weight(_text_:h in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015160571 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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)
0.030119333 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030119333 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = 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
-
Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008)
0.02
0.022639953 = product of:
0.045279905 = sum of:
0.045279905 = sum of:
0.015160571 = weight(_text_:h in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015160571 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11046136 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
0.030119333 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030119333 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15569523 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04446111 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 6.2008 12:54:12
- Source
- Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.2, S.14-20
