Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.031199675 = product of:
  0.06239935 = sum of:
    0.06239935 = sum of:
      0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031563994 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045518078 = queryNorm
          0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.030835358 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030835358 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045518078 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

0.009469198 = product of:
  0.018938396 = sum of:
    0.018938396 = product of:
      0.037876792 = sum of:
        0.037876792 = weight(_text_:b in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037876792 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

0.009250606 = product of:
  0.018501213 = sum of:
    0.018501213 = product of:
      0.037002426 = sum of:
        0.037002426 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037002426 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15939656 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

8. 1.2019 18:22:45

0.007890998 = product of:
  0.015781997 = sum of:
    0.015781997 = product of:
      0.031563994 = sum of:
        0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031563994 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.

0.007890998 = product of:
  0.015781997 = sum of:
    0.015781997 = product of:
      0.031563994 = sum of:
        0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031563994 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.

0.007890998 = product of:
  0.015781997 = sum of:
    0.015781997 = product of:
      0.031563994 = sum of:
        0.031563994 = weight(_text_:b in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031563994 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Leiden Rankings can be used for grouping research universities by considering universities which are not statistically significantly different as homogeneous sets. The groups and intergroup relations can be analyzed and visualized using tools from network analysis. Using the so-called "excellence indicator" PPtop-10%-the proportion of the top-10% most-highly-cited papers assigned to a university-we pursue a classification using (a) overlapping stability intervals, (b) statistical-significance tests, and (c) effect sizes of differences among 902 universities in 54 countries; we focus on the UK, Germany, Brazil, and the USA as national examples. Although the groupings remain largely the same using different statistical significance levels or overlapping stability intervals, these classifications are uncorrelated with those based on effect sizes. Effect sizes for the differences between universities are small (w < .2). The more detailed analysis of universities at the country level suggests that distinctions beyond three or perhaps four groups of universities (high, middle, low) may not be meaningful. Given similar institutional incentives, isomorphism within each eco-system of universities should not be underestimated. Our results suggest that networks based on overlapping stability intervals can provide a first impression of the relevant groupings among universities. However, the clusters are not well-defined divisions between groups of universities.