-
Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014)
0.07
0.067822084 = product of:
0.13564417 = sum of:
0.13564417 = sum of:
0.015100257 = weight(_text_:d in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015100257 = score(doc=1352,freq=4.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.178113 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.084268644 = weight(_text_:z in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084268644 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.036275268 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036275268 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15626416 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = 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)
- Abstract
- Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:11:29
-
Haiqi, Z.: ¬The literature of Qigong : publication patterns and subject headings (1997)
0.05
0.04687819 = product of:
0.09375638 = sum of:
0.09375638 = product of:
0.14063457 = sum of:
0.09831342 = weight(_text_:z in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09831342 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.41278675 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
0.04232115 = weight(_text_:22 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04232115 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15626416 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.38-44
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Universality of citation distributions : a validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry (2009)
0.04
0.043509744 = product of:
0.08701949 = sum of:
0.08701949 = product of:
0.13052922 = sum of:
0.008897911 = weight(_text_:d in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008897911 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.12163132 = weight(_text_:z in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12163132 = score(doc=2954,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.51069117 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In a recently published PNAS paper, Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008) propose the relative indicator cf as an unbiased indicator for citation performance across disciplines (fields, subject areas). To calculate cf, the citation rate for a single paper is divided by the average number of citations for all papers in the discipline in which the single paper has been categorized. cf values are said to lead to a universality of discipline-specific citation distributions. Using a comprehensive dataset of an evaluation study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), we tested the advantage of using this indicator in practical application at the micro level, as compared with (1) simple citation rates, and (2) z-scores, which have been used in psychological testing for many years for normalization of test scores. To calculate z-scores, the mean number of citations of the papers within a discipline is subtracted from the citation rate of a single paper, and the difference is then divided by the citations' standard deviation for a discipline. Our results indicate that z-scores are better suited than cf values to produce universality of discipline-specific citation distributions.
-
Xie, Z.; Ouyang, Z.; Li, J.; Dong, E.: Modelling transition phenomena of scientific coauthorship networks (2018)
0.04
0.043283787 = product of:
0.08656757 = sum of:
0.08656757 = product of:
0.12985136 = sum of:
0.010677493 = weight(_text_:d in 4043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010677493 = score(doc=4043,freq=2.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 4043, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4043)
0.11917387 = weight(_text_:z in 4043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11917387 = score(doc=4043,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.5003731 = fieldWeight in 4043, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4043)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Editor
- Yi, D.
-
He, Z.; Lei, Z.; Wang, D.: Modeling citation dynamics of "atypical" articles (2018)
0.04
0.043283787 = product of:
0.08656757 = sum of:
0.08656757 = product of:
0.12985136 = sum of:
0.010677493 = weight(_text_:d in 4365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010677493 = score(doc=4365,freq=2.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 4365, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4365)
0.11917387 = weight(_text_:z in 4365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11917387 = score(doc=4365,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.5003731 = fieldWeight in 4365, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4365)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
He, Z.-L.: International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority (2009)
0.04
0.040181305 = product of:
0.08036261 = sum of:
0.08036261 = product of:
0.12054391 = sum of:
0.084268644 = weight(_text_:z in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084268644 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
0.036275268 = weight(_text_:22 in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036275268 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15626416 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3122, 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=3122)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26. 9.2009 11:22:05
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.04
0.03765823 = product of:
0.07531646 = sum of:
0.07531646 = product of:
0.11297469 = sum of:
0.07022387 = weight(_text_:z in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07022387 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.042750817 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042750817 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15626416 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
-
Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015)
0.03
0.03348442 = product of:
0.06696884 = sum of:
0.06696884 = product of:
0.10045326 = sum of:
0.07022387 = weight(_text_:z in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07022387 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
0.030229392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030229392 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15626416 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023)
0.03
0.03348442 = product of:
0.06696884 = sum of:
0.06696884 = product of:
0.10045326 = sum of:
0.07022387 = weight(_text_:z in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07022387 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
0.030229392 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030229392 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15626416 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 18:37:33
-
Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013)
0.03
0.033122968 = product of:
0.066245936 = sum of:
0.066245936 = product of:
0.0993689 = sum of:
0.015100257 = weight(_text_:d in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015100257 = score(doc=928,freq=4.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.178113 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.084268644 = weight(_text_:z in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084268644 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Grundsätzlich können wir bei Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft zwischen einer 'qualitative' Form, der Bewertung einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit (z. B. eines Manuskripts oder Forschungsantrags) durch kompetente Peers, und einer 'quantitative' Form, der Bewertung von wissenschaftlicher Arbeit anhand bibliometrischer Indikatoren unterscheiden. Beide Formen der Bewertung sind nicht unumstritten. Die Kritiker des Peer Review sehen vor allem zwei Schwächen des Verfahrens: (1) Verschiedene Gutachter würden kaum in der Bewertung ein und derselben wissenschaftlichen Arbeit übereinstimmen. (2) Gutachterliche Empfehlungen würden systematische Urteilsverzerrungen aufweisen. Gegen die Verwendung von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für die Qualität einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit wird seit Jahren eine Vielzahl von Bedenken geäußert. Zitierhäufigkeiten seien keine 'objektiven' Messungen von wissenschaftlicher Qualität, sondern ein kritisierbares Messkonstrukt. So wird unter anderem kritisiert, dass wissenschaftliche Qualität ein komplexes Phänomen darstelle, das nicht auf einer eindimensionalen Skala (d. h. anhand von Zitierhäufigkeiten) gemessen werden könne. Es werden empirische Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Fairness des Peer Review Verfahrens sowie Forschungsergebnisse zur Güte von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für wissenschaftliche Qualität vorgestellt.
- Language
- d
-
Liu, Z.; Wang, C.: Mapping interdisciplinarity in demography : a journal network analysis (2005)
0.03
0.03277114 = product of:
0.06554228 = sum of:
0.06554228 = product of:
0.19662684 = sum of:
0.19662684 = weight(_text_:z in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19662684 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.8255735 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Umstätter, W.; Rehm, M.; Dorogi, Z.: ¬Die Halbwertszeit in der naturwissenschaftlichen Literatur (1982)
0.03
0.031648714 = product of:
0.06329743 = sum of:
0.06329743 = product of:
0.09494614 = sum of:
0.010677493 = weight(_text_:d in 5279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010677493 = score(doc=5279,freq=2.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 5279, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5279)
0.084268644 = weight(_text_:z in 5279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084268644 = score(doc=5279,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 5279, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5279)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Language
- d
-
Huang, M.-H.; Tang, M.-C.; Chen, D.-Z.: Inequality of publishing performance and international collaboration in physics (2011)
0.03
0.031648714 = product of:
0.06329743 = sum of:
0.06329743 = product of:
0.09494614 = sum of:
0.010677493 = weight(_text_:d in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010677493 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
0.084268644 = weight(_text_:z in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084268644 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Huang, M.-H.; Chen, D.-Z.: ¬A two-dimensional approach to performance evaluation for a large number of research institutions (2012)
0.03
0.031648714 = product of:
0.06329743 = sum of:
0.06329743 = product of:
0.09494614 = sum of:
0.010677493 = weight(_text_:d in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010677493 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
0.084268644 = weight(_text_:z in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084268644 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Tüür-Fröhlich, T.: ¬Eine "autoritative" Datenbank auf dem Prüfstand : der Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) und seine Datenqualität (2018)
0.03
0.031648714 = product of:
0.06329743 = sum of:
0.06329743 = product of:
0.09494614 = sum of:
0.010677493 = weight(_text_:d in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010677493 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
0.084268644 = weight(_text_:z in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084268644 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Zitatdatenbanken bilden die Datengrundlagen für zahlreiche szientometrische Untersuchungen, Evaluationen wissenschaftlicher Leistungen und Uni-Rankings. In der Literatur finden sich kaum Hinweise auf endogene Fehler (Original richtig, Datenbankeintrag falsch) in den kostenpflichtigen Datenbanken. Banale Fehler (z. B. Falschschreibung der Namen von Autorinnen oder Autoren) in Datenbanken hätten nur geringe Relevanz. Die Fehlersuche zu Pierre Bourdieu als "cited author" im SSCI (Vergleich Original - SSCI-Record) ergab mehr als 85 Mutationen. Die Fallstudien zeigen eine hohe Anzahl endogener Datenbankfehler. In den Rechtswissenschaften übliche Referenzen in Fußnoten laufen große Gefahr, in Phantomreferenzen verwandelt zu werden (Fallstudie Harvard Law Review: 99 Prozent Fehler). Dem Anspruch des SSCI, die "relevanten" globalen Sozialwissenschaften abzubilden - für alle im SSCI erfassten Disziplinen -, stehen offenbar Mängel in Datenerfassung und -verarbeitung im Wege.
- Language
- d
-
Glänzel, W.; Debackere, K.: Messen von Wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation und Forschungsleistung : Möglichkeiten und Beschränkungen bibliometrischer Methoden (2005)
0.03
0.028855858 = product of:
0.057711717 = sum of:
0.057711717 = product of:
0.08656757 = sum of:
0.007118329 = weight(_text_:d in 3770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007118329 = score(doc=3770,freq=2.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.08396327 = fieldWeight in 3770, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3770)
0.079449244 = weight(_text_:z in 3770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.079449244 = score(doc=3770,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.33358207 = fieldWeight in 3770, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3770)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In den letzten drei Jahrzehnten hat sich die Bibliometrie (auch Szientometrie genannt) zu einem komplexen Forschungs- und Dienstleistungsgebiet entwickelt. Ergebnisse bibliometrischer Studien haben längst Eingang gefunden in Wissenschaftspolitik und Forschungsmanagement. Allerdings haben sich betreffend der Aufgabe und Funktion der Bibliometrie auch hartnäckig Vorurteile und Mißverständnisse gehalten. Zu diesen gehören Meinungen wie z. B., daß methodische Forschung auf diesem Gebiet unnötig sei und daß Bibliometriker ihre Aktivitäten besser auf den praxisorientierte Einsatz und auf die Erarbeitung leicht verständlicher Guidelines für den Umgang mit ihren Indikatoren konzentrieren sollten. Trotz derverbreiteten Auffassung, daß Bibliometrie lediglich ein Hilfsmittel im Dienste der Wissenschaftspolitik sei, haben Bibliometriker durch ihre Forschung gezeigt, daß sich ihre Disziplin zu einem vielseitigem interdisziplinären Fachgebiet mit eigenen Teilbereichen entwickelt hat: Die strukturelle Szientometrie beschäftigt sich mit der epistemologischen Struktur der Wissenschaft, die dynamische Szientometrie brachte z. B. Modelle des Wachstums der Wissenschaft, der Alterung von Information und der Zitationsprozesse hervor; die evaluative Szientometrie entwickelte schließlich Indikatoren zum Messen und zur Evaluation von Forschungsleistung. Obwohl sich im letztgenannten Bereich ein Anwendungsschwerpunkt herauskristallisiert hat, sollte hierbei noch ein letztes Mißverständins ausgeräumt werden: Bibliometrie kann zwar zur Entwicklung von Methoden für die Forschungsevaluation genutzt werden; es kann aber nicht Aufgabe der Bibliometrie sein, Forschungsergebnisse zu beurteilen. Darüber hinaus hat Bibliometrie auch nicht zum Ziel, qualitative Methoden durch quantitative Verfahren, also im besonderen peer reviews oder Gutachten von Experten durch indikatorbasierte Evaluationen zu ersetzen; qualitative Methoden und Bibliometrie sollten einander stets ergänzen. Im folgenden wollen wir zunächst kurz die Struktur der gegenwärtigen bibliometrischen Forschung abreißen und dann die Möglichkeiten und Beschränkungen bibliometrischer Methoden diskutieren.
- Language
- d
-
Tüür-Fröhlich, T.: Blackbox SSCI : Datenerfassung und Datenverarbeitung bei der kommerziellen Indexierung von Zitaten (2019)
0.03
0.02854517 = product of:
0.05709034 = sum of:
0.05709034 = product of:
0.085635506 = sum of:
0.015411636 = weight(_text_:d in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015411636 = score(doc=5779,freq=6.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.18178582 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
0.07022387 = weight(_text_:z in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07022387 = score(doc=5779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Zahlreiche Autoren, Autorinnen und kritische Initiativen (z. B. DORA) kritisieren den zu hohen und schädlichen Einfluss quantitativer Daten, welche akademische Instanzen für Evaluationszwecke heranziehen. Wegen des großen Einflusses der globalen Zitatdatenbanken von Thomson Reuters (bzw. Clarivate Analytics) auf die Bewertung der wissenschaftlichen Leistungen von Forscherinnen und Forschern habe ich extensive qualitative und quantitative Fallstudien zur Datenqualität des Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) durchgeführt, d. h. die Originaleinträge mit den SSCI-Datensätzen verglichen. Diese Fallstudien zeigten schwerste - nie in der Literatur erwähnte - Fehler, Verstümmelungen, Phantomautoren, Phantomwerke (Fehlerrate in der Fallstudie zu Beebe 2010, Harvard Law Review: 99 Prozent). Über die verwendeten Datenerfassungs- und Indexierungsverfahren von TR bzw. Clarivate Analytics ist nur wenig bekannt. Ein Ergebnis meiner Untersuchungen: Bei der Indexierung von Verweisen in Fußnoten (wie in den Rechtswissenschaften, gerade auch der USA, vorgeschrieben) scheinen die verwendeten Textanalyse-Anwendungen und -Algorithmen völlig überfordert. Eine Qualitätskontrolle scheint nicht stattzufinden. Damit steht der Anspruch des SSCI als einer multidisziplinären Datenbank zur Debatte. Korrekte Zitate in den Fußnoten des Originals können zu Phantom-Autoren, Phantom-Werken und Phantom-Referenzen degenerieren. Das bedeutet: Sämtliche Zeitschriften und Disziplinen, deren Zeitschriften und Büchern dieses oder ähnliche Zitierverfahren verwenden (Oxford-Style), laufen Gefahr, aufgrund starker Zitatverluste falsch, d. h. unterbewertet, zu werden. Wie viele UBOs (Unidentifiable Bibliographic Objects) sich in den Datenbanken SCI, SSCI und AHCI befinden, wäre nur mit sehr aufwändigen Prozeduren zu klären. Unabhängig davon handelt es sich, wie bei fast allen in meinen Untersuchungen gefundenen fatalen Fehlern, eindeutig um endogene Fehler in den Datenbanken, die nicht, wie oft behauptet, angeblich falsch zitierenden Autorinnen und Autoren zugeschrieben werden können, sondern erst im Laufe der Dateneingabe und -verarbeitung entstehen.
- Language
- d
-
Huang, M.-H.; Lin, C.-S.; Chen, D.-Z.: Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact (2011)
0.03
0.026373927 = product of:
0.052747853 = sum of:
0.052747853 = product of:
0.079121776 = sum of:
0.008897911 = weight(_text_:d in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008897911 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
0.07022387 = weight(_text_:z in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07022387 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23817 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Falkingham, L.T.; Reeves, R.: Context analysis : a technique for analysing research in a field, applied to literature on the management of R&D at the section level (1998)
0.02
0.021299146 = product of:
0.042598292 = sum of:
0.042598292 = product of:
0.06389744 = sum of:
0.02157629 = weight(_text_:d in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02157629 = score(doc=3689,freq=6.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.25450015 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
0.04232115 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04232115 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15626416 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3689, 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=3689)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Context analysis is a new method for appraising a body of publications. the process consists of creating a database of attributes assigned to each paper by the reviewer and then looking for interesting relationships in the data. Assigning the attributes requires an understanding of the subject matter of the papers. Presents findings about one particular research field, Management of R&D at the Section Level. The findings support the view that this body of academic publications does not meet the needs of practitioner R&D managers. Discusses practical aspects of how to apply the method in other fields
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:18:46
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.02
0.020867895 = product of:
0.04173579 = sum of:
0.04173579 = product of:
0.06260368 = sum of:
0.014236658 = weight(_text_:d in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014236658 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.084779084 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = queryNorm
0.16792654 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
0.048367027 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048367027 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15626416 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044623576 = 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
- Language
- d
