Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04678875 = product of:
  0.0935775 = sum of:
    0.0935775 = sum of:
      0.04415922 = weight(_text_:r in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04415922 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045593463 = queryNorm
          0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
      0.049418278 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049418278 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15966053 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045593463 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:05:18

0.018514317 = product of:
  0.037028633 = sum of:
    0.037028633 = product of:
      0.074057266 = sum of:
        0.074057266 = weight(_text_:r in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074057266 = score(doc=4485,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.49068546 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We submit newly developed citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks. Citation distributions are-as a rule-highly skewed and should not be arithmetically averaged. With percentile ranks, the citation score of each paper is rated in terms of its percentile in the citation distribution. The percentile ranks approach allows for the formulation of a more abstract indicator scheme that can be used to organize and/or schematize different impact indicators according to three degrees of freedom: the selection of the reference sets, the evaluation criteria, and the choice of whether or not to define the publication sets as independent. Bibliometric data of seven principal investigators (PIs) of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam are used as an exemplary dataset. We demonstrate that the proposed family indicators [R(6), R(100), R(6, k), R(100, k)] are an improvement on averages-based indicators because one can account for the shape of the distributions of citations over papers.

0.01195094 = product of:
  0.02390188 = sum of:
    0.02390188 = product of:
      0.04780376 = sum of:
        0.04780376 = weight(_text_:r in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04780376 = score(doc=2270,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.3167361 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is essential for research funding organizations to ensure both the validity and fairness of the grant approval procedure. The ex-ante peer evaluation (EXANTE) of N?=?8,496 grant applications submitted to the Austrian Science Fund from 1999 to 2009 was statistically analyzed. For 1,689 funded research projects an ex-post peer evaluation (EXPOST) was also available; for the rest of the grant applications a multilevel missing data imputation approach was used to consider verification bias for the first time in peer-review research. Without imputation, the predictive validity of EXANTE was low (r?=?.26) but underestimated due to verification bias, and with imputation it was r?=?.49. That is, the decision-making procedure is capable of selecting the best research proposals for funding. In the EXANTE there were several potential biases (e.g., gender). With respect to the EXPOST there was only one real bias (discipline-specific and year-specific differential prediction). The novelty of this contribution is, first, the combining of theoretical concepts of validity and fairness with a missing data imputation approach to correct for verification bias and, second, multilevel modeling to test peer review-based funding decisions for both validity and fairness in terms of potential and real biases.

0.009757902 = product of:
  0.019515803 = sum of:
    0.019515803 = product of:
      0.039031606 = sum of:
        0.039031606 = weight(_text_:r in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039031606 = score(doc=2861,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs number of publications (for the quantity dimension) and total citation counts (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between number of publications and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between total citation counts and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.

0.0082798535 = product of:
  0.016559707 = sum of:
    0.016559707 = product of:
      0.033119414 = sum of:
        0.033119414 = weight(_text_:r in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033119414 = score(doc=1109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0082798535 = product of:
  0.016559707 = sum of:
    0.016559707 = product of:
      0.033119414 = sum of:
        0.033119414 = weight(_text_:r in 2171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033119414 = score(doc=2171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 2171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006899878 = product of:
  0.013799756 = sum of:
    0.013799756 = product of:
      0.027599512 = sum of:
        0.027599512 = weight(_text_:r in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027599512 = score(doc=1608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006899878 = product of:
  0.013799756 = sum of:
    0.013799756 = product of:
      0.027599512 = sum of:
        0.027599512 = weight(_text_:r in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027599512 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006899878 = product of:
  0.013799756 = sum of:
    0.013799756 = product of:
      0.027599512 = sum of:
        0.027599512 = weight(_text_:r in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027599512 = score(doc=2261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.006899878 = product of:
  0.013799756 = sum of:
    0.013799756 = product of:
      0.027599512 = sum of:
        0.027599512 = weight(_text_:r in 3792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027599512 = score(doc=3792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15092614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045593463 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 3792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)