Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

García, J.A.; Rodriguez-Sánchez, R.; Fdez-Valdivia, J.: Ranking of the subject areas of Scopus (2011) 0.02
```
0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 4768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=4768,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 4768, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4768)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Here, we show a longitudinal analysis of the ranking of the subject areas of Elsevier's Scopus. To this aim, we present three summary measures based on the journal ranking scores for academic journals in each subject area. This longitudinal study allows us to analyze developmental trends over times in different subject areas with distinct citation and publication patterns. We evaluate the relative performance of each subject area by using the overall prestige for the most important journals with ranking score above a given threshold (e.g., in the first quartile) as well as the overall prestige gap for the less important journals with ranking score below a given threshold (e.g., below the top 10 journals). Thus, we propose that it should be possible to study different subject areas by means of appropriate summary measures of the journal ranking scores, which provide additional information beyond analyzing the inequality of the whole ranking-score distribution for academic journals in each subject area. It allows us to investigate whether subject areas with high levels of overall prestige for the first quartile journals also tended to achieve low levels of overall prestige gap for the journals below the top 10.
García, J.A.; Rodriguez-Sánchez, R.; Fdez-Valdivia, J.: Social impact of scholarly articles in a citation network (2015) 0.02
```
0.023835853 = product of:
  0.047671705 = sum of:
    0.047671705 = product of:
      0.09534341 = sum of:
        0.09534341 = weight(_text_:e.g in 1621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09534341 = score(doc=1621,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.40756583 = fieldWeight in 1621, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

The intent of this article is to use cooperative game theory to predict the level of social impact of scholarly papers created by citation networks. Social impact of papers can be defined as the net effect of citations on a network. A publication exerts direct and indirect influence on others (e.g., by citing articles) and is itself influenced directly and indirectly (e.g., by cited articles). This network leads to an influence structure of citing and cited publications. Drawing on cooperative game theory, our research problem is to translate into mathematical equations the rules that govern the social impact of a paper in a citation network. In this article, we show that when citation relationships between academic papers function within a citation structure, the result is social impact instead of the (individual) citation impact of each paper. Mathematical equations explain the interaction between papers in such a citation structure. The equations show that the social impact of a paper is affected by the (individual) citation impact of citing publications, immediacy of citing articles, and number of both citing and cited papers. Examples are provided for several academic papers.
García, J.A.; Rodriguez-Sánchez, R.; Fdez-Valdivia, J.: Scientific subject categories of Web of Knowledge ranked according to their multidimensional prestige of influential journals (2012) 0.02
```
0.020225393 = product of:
  0.040450785 = sum of:
    0.040450785 = product of:
      0.08090157 = sum of:
        0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08090157 = score(doc=235,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 235, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=235)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

A journal may be considered as having dimension-specific prestige when its score, based on a given journal ranking model, exceeds a threshold value. But a journal has multidimensional prestige only if it is a prestigious journal with respect to a number of dimensions-e.g., Institute for Scientific Information Impact Factor, immediacy index, eigenfactor score, and article influence score. The multidimensional prestige of influential journals takes into account the fact that several prestige indicators should be used for a distinct analysis of the impact of scholarly journals in a subject category. After having identified the multidimensionally influential journals, their prestige scores can be aggregated to produce a summary measure of multidimensional prestige for a subject category, which satisfies numerous properties. Using this measure of multidimensional prestige to rank subject categories, we have found the top scientific subject categories of Web of Knowledge as of 2010.
García, J.A.; Rodriguez-Sánchez, R.; Fdez-Valdivia, J.: Bias and effort in peer review (2015) 0.02
```
0.020225393 = product of:
  0.040450785 = sum of:
    0.040450785 = product of:
      0.08090157 = sum of:
        0.08090157 = weight(_text_:e.g in 2121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08090157 = score(doc=2121,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044842023 = queryNorm
            0.34583107 = fieldWeight in 2121, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2121)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Here, we develop a theory of the relationship between the reviewer's effort and bias in peer review. From this theory, it follows that journal editors might employ biased reviewers because they shirk less. This creates an incentive for the editor to use monitoring mechanisms (e.g., associate editors supervising the peer review process) that mitigate the resulting bias in the reviewers' recommendations. The supervision of associate editors could encourage journal editors to employ more extreme reviewers. This theory helps to explain the presence of bias in peer review. To mitigate shirking by a reviewer, the journal editor may assign biased referees to generate information about the manuscript's quality and subject the reviewer's recommendations to supervision by a more aligned associate editor.

Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors