-
H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008)
0.07
0.06779338 = product of:
0.13558675 = sum of:
0.13558675 = sum of:
0.049288187 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049288187 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.049288187 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049288187 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.037010383 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037010383 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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
-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.06
0.059330404 = product of:
0.11866081 = sum of:
0.11866081 = sum of:
0.04390941 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04390941 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.04390941 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04390941 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.030841988 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030841988 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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
-
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)
0.05
0.053447656 = product of:
0.10689531 = sum of:
0.10689531 = sum of:
0.03802666 = weight(_text_:h in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03802666 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.03802666 = weight(_text_:h in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03802666 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.030841988 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030841988 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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
-
Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006)
0.05
0.0495125 = product of:
0.099025 = sum of:
0.099025 = sum of:
0.024838911 = weight(_text_:h in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024838911 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.024838911 = weight(_text_:h in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024838911 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.04934718 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04934718 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.05
0.0495125 = product of:
0.099025 = sum of:
0.099025 = sum of:
0.024838911 = weight(_text_:h in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024838911 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.024838911 = weight(_text_:h in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024838911 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.04934718 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04934718 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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
-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.04
0.044850834 = product of:
0.08970167 = sum of:
0.08970167 = sum of:
0.026345644 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026345644 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.026345644 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026345644 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.037010383 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037010383 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.04
0.04332344 = product of:
0.08664688 = sum of:
0.08664688 = sum of:
0.021734048 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021734048 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.021734048 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021734048 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.043178782 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043178782 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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
-
Calculating the h-index : Web of Science, Scopus or Google Scholar? (2011)
0.04
0.04139819 = product of:
0.08279638 = sum of:
0.08279638 = product of:
0.12419456 = sum of:
0.06209728 = weight(_text_:h in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06209728 = score(doc=854,freq=8.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.5489909 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
0.06209728 = weight(_text_:h in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06209728 = score(doc=854,freq=8.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.5489909 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Gegenüberstellung der Berechnung des h-Index in den drei Tools mit Beispiel Stephen Hawking (WoS: 59, Scopus: 19, Google Scholar: 76)
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- https://dspace.ndlr.ie/jspui/bitstream/10633/27353/9/H%20index%20datasheet.pdf
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007)
0.04
0.040982112 = product of:
0.081964225 = sum of:
0.081964225 = product of:
0.12294634 = sum of:
0.06147317 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06147317 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.06147317 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06147317 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Jorge Hirsch recently proposed the h index to quantify the research output of individual scientists. The new index has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific community. The claim that the h index in a single number provides a good representation of the scientific lifetime achievement of a scientist as well as the (supposed) simple calculation of the h index using common literature databases lead to the danger of improper use of the index. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the h index and summarize the studies on the convergent validity of this index. We also introduce corrections and complements as well as single-number alternatives to the h index.
- Object
- H-Index
-
Hovden, R.: Bibliometrics for Internet media : applying the h-index to YouTube (2013)
0.04
0.040982112 = product of:
0.081964225 = sum of:
0.081964225 = product of:
0.12294634 = sum of:
0.06147317 = weight(_text_:h in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06147317 = score(doc=1111,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
0.06147317 = weight(_text_:h in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06147317 = score(doc=1111,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.
- Object
- h-index
-
Gianoli, E.; Molina-Montenegro, M.A.: Insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations (2009)
0.04
0.040561773 = product of:
0.081123546 = sum of:
0.081123546 = product of:
0.12168532 = sum of:
0.06084266 = weight(_text_:h in 2859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06084266 = score(doc=2859,freq=12.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.537899 = fieldWeight in 2859, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2859)
0.06084266 = weight(_text_:h in 2859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06084266 = score(doc=2859,freq=12.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.537899 = fieldWeight in 2859, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2859)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We analyze the publication output of 119 Chilean ecologists and find strong evidence that self-citations significantly affect the h-index increase. Furthermore, we show that the relationship between the increase in the h-index and the proportion of self-citations differs between high and low h-index researchers. In particular, our results show that it is in the low h-index group where self-citations cause the greater impact.
- Object
- h-Index
-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The inconsistency of the h-index : the case of web accessibility in Western European countries (2012)
0.04
0.03927377 = product of:
0.07854754 = sum of:
0.07854754 = product of:
0.1178213 = sum of:
0.05891065 = weight(_text_:h in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05891065 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.5208185 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.05891065 = weight(_text_:h in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05891065 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.5208185 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis), the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.
- Object
- h-index
-
Schreiber, M.: ¬An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index (2008)
0.04
0.037315823 = product of:
0.07463165 = sum of:
0.07463165 = product of:
0.11194746 = sum of:
0.05597373 = weight(_text_:h in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05597373 = score(doc=1968,freq=26.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.4948537 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
0.05597373 = weight(_text_:h in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05597373 = score(doc=1968,freq=26.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.4948537 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. To take into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations, L. Egghe (2006a) proposed the g-index as an improvement of the h-index. I have worked out 26 practical cases of physicists from the Institute of Physics at Chemnitz University of Technology, and compare the h and g values in this study. It is demonstrated that the g-index discriminates better between different citation patterns. This also can be achieved by evaluating B.H. Jin's (2006) A-index, which reflects the average number of citations in the h-core, and interpreting it in conjunction with the h-index. h and A can be combined into the R-index to measure the h-core's citation intensity. I also have determined the A and R values for the 26 datasets. For a better comparison, I utilize interpolated indices. The correlations between the various indices as well as with the total number of papers and the highest citation counts are discussed. The largest Pearson correlation coefficient is found between g and R. Although the correlation between g and h is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either h or g.
- Object
- h-Index
-
Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010)
0.04
0.037258368 = product of:
0.074516736 = sum of:
0.074516736 = product of:
0.1117751 = sum of:
0.05588755 = weight(_text_:h in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05588755 = score(doc=3418,freq=18.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.49409178 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
0.05588755 = weight(_text_:h in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05588755 = score(doc=3418,freq=18.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.49409178 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
- Object
- h-index
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.04
0.03713437 = product of:
0.07426874 = sum of:
0.07426874 = sum of:
0.018629182 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018629182 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.018629182 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018629182 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.037010383 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037010383 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.04
0.03713437 = product of:
0.07426874 = sum of:
0.07426874 = sum of:
0.018629182 = weight(_text_:h in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018629182 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.018629182 = weight(_text_:h in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018629182 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.037010383 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037010383 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.04
0.03713437 = product of:
0.07426874 = sum of:
0.07426874 = sum of:
0.018629182 = weight(_text_:h in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018629182 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.018629182 = weight(_text_:h in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018629182 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.037010383 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037010383 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.04
0.03713437 = product of:
0.07426874 = sum of:
0.07426874 = sum of:
0.018629182 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018629182 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.018629182 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018629182 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.037010383 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037010383 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.04
0.03713437 = product of:
0.07426874 = sum of:
0.07426874 = sum of:
0.018629182 = weight(_text_:h in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018629182 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.018629182 = weight(_text_:h in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018629182 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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)
0.037010383 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037010383 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15943083 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = 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
-
Egghe, L.: Dynamic h-index : the Hirsch index in function of time (2007)
0.04
0.037027664 = product of:
0.07405533 = sum of:
0.07405533 = product of:
0.11108299 = sum of:
0.055541497 = weight(_text_:h in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055541497 = score(doc=147,freq=10.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
0.055541497 = weight(_text_:h in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055541497 = score(doc=147,freq=10.0), product of:
0.113111675 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045527868 = queryNorm
0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- When there are a group of articles and the present time is fixed we can determine the unique number h being the number of articles that received h or more citations while the other articles received a number of citations which is not larger than h. In this article, the time dependence of the h-index is determined. This is important to describe the expected career evolution of a scientist's work or of a journal's production in a fixed year.
