Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × author_ss:"Schreiber, M."
  1. Schreiber, M.: Do we need the g-index? (2013) 0.02 
    0.018200047 = product of:
  0.036400095 = sum of:
    0.036400095 = product of:
      0.07280019 = sum of:
        0.07280019 = weight(_text_:i in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07280019 = score(doc=1113,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15441231 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04093939 = queryNorm
            0.4714662 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using a very small sample of 8 data sets it was recently shown by De Visscher (2011) that the g-index is very close to the square root of the total number of citations. It was argued that there is no bibliometrically meaningful difference. Using another somewhat larger empirical sample of 26 data sets I show that the difference may be larger and I argue in favor of the g-index.
  2. Schreiber, M.: Restricting the h-index to a citation time window : a case study of a timed Hirsch index (2014) 0.01 
    0.012869377 = product of:
  0.025738753 = sum of:
    0.025738753 = product of:
      0.051477507 = sum of:
        0.051477507 = weight(_text_:i in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051477507 = score(doc=1563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15441231 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04093939 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The h-index has been shown to increase in many cases mostly because of citations to rather old publications. This inertia can be circumvented by restricting the evaluation to a citation time window. Here I report results of an empirical study analyzing the evolution of the thus defined timed h-index in dependence on the length of the citation time window.
  3. Schreiber, M.: ¬A variant of the h-index to measure recent performance (2015) 0.01 
    0.011260705 = product of:
  0.02252141 = sum of:
    0.02252141 = product of:
      0.04504282 = sum of:
        0.04504282 = weight(_text_:i in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04504282 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15441231 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04093939 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The predictive power of the h-index has been shown to depend on citations to rather old publications. This has raised doubts about its usefulness for predicting future scientific achievements. Here, I investigate a variant that considers only recent publications and is therefore more useful in academic hiring processes and for the allocation of research resources. It is simply defined in analogy to the usual h-index, but takes into account only publications from recent years, and it can easily be determined from the ISI Web of Knowledge.
  4. Schreiber, M.: Uncertainties and ambiguities in percentiles and how to avoid them (2013) 0.01 
    0.011093445 = product of:
  0.02218689 = sum of:
    0.02218689 = product of:
      0.04437378 = sum of:
        0.04437378 = weight(_text_:22 in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04437378 = score(doc=675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14336278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04093939 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 675, 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=675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:52:05

Types