Search (425 results, page 1 of 22)

0.060199425 = product of:
  0.12039885 = sum of:
    0.12039885 = product of:
      0.18059827 = sum of:
        0.042672772 = weight(_text_:h in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042672772 = score(doc=3313,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.38035205 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
        0.1379255 = weight(_text_:g in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1379255 = score(doc=3313,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.81318647 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The g-index is discussed in terms of the average number of citations of the publications in the g-core, showing that it combines features of the h-index and the A-index in one number. For a visualization, data of 8 famous physicists are presented and analyzed. In comparison with the h-index, the g-index increases between 67% and 144%, on average by a factor of 2.

Object

g-index
h-index

0.058293518 = product of:
  0.116587035 = sum of:
    0.116587035 = product of:
      0.17488055 = sum of:
        0.055433553 = weight(_text_:h in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055433553 = score(doc=3418,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = 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)
        0.11944699 = weight(_text_:g in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11944699 = score(doc=3418,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, 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
g-index

0.05704782 = product of:
  0.11409564 = sum of:
    0.11409564 = product of:
      0.17114346 = sum of:
        0.060973797 = weight(_text_:h in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060973797 = score(doc=1111,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = 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)
        0.110169664 = weight(_text_:g in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110169664 = score(doc=1111,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.6495425 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, 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
g-index

0.052627087 = product of:
  0.10525417 = sum of:
    0.10525417 = product of:
      0.15788126 = sum of:
        0.08446178 = weight(_text_:g in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08446178 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
        0.073419474 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073419474 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15813573 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2007 17:02:22

0.05253613 = product of:
  0.10507226 = sum of:
    0.10507226 = sum of:
      0.026131628 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026131628 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04515803 = 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)
      0.04223089 = weight(_text_:g in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04223089 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04515803 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.036709737 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036709737 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15813573 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04515803 = 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

0.049568485 = product of:
  0.09913697 = sum of:
    0.09913697 = product of:
      0.14870545 = sum of:
        0.04526131 = weight(_text_:h in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04526131 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
        0.10344414 = weight(_text_:g in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10344414 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.60988986 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.

Object

h-index
g-index

0.049543135 = product of:
  0.09908627 = sum of:
    0.09908627 = product of:
      0.1486294 = sum of:
        0.055519033 = weight(_text_:h in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055519033 = score(doc=1968,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = 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)
        0.09311036 = weight(_text_:g in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09311036 = score(doc=1968,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.5489636 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, 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

0.04891426 = product of:
  0.09782852 = sum of:
    0.09782852 = product of:
      0.14674278 = sum of:
        0.048204023 = weight(_text_:h in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048204023 = score(doc=1881,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.42965335 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
        0.09853875 = weight(_text_:g in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09853875 = score(doc=1881,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.5809685 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a previous article, we introduced a general transformation on sources and one on items in an arbitrary information production process (IPP). In this article, we investigate the influence of these transformations on the h-index and on the g-index. General formulae that describe this influence are presented. These are applied to the case that the size-frequency function is Lotkaian (i.e., is a decreasing power function). We further show that the h-index of the transformed IPP belongs to the interval bounded by the two transformations of the h-index of the original IPP, and we also show that this property is not true for the g-index.

Object

h-index
g-index

0.046733614 = product of:
  0.09346723 = sum of:
    0.09346723 = product of:
      0.14020084 = sum of:
        0.042672772 = weight(_text_:h in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042672772 = score(doc=2350,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.38035205 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
        0.09752807 = weight(_text_:g in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09752807 = score(doc=2350,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I discuss how, given a certain number of articles and citations of these articles, the h-index and the g-index are affected by the level of concentration of the citations. This offers the opportunity for a comparison between these 2 indices from a new perspective.

Object

g-index
h-index

0.04597495 = product of:
  0.0919499 = sum of:
    0.0919499 = product of:
      0.13792485 = sum of:
        0.018477852 = weight(_text_:h in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018477852 = score(doc=3125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 3125, 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=3125)
        0.11944699 = weight(_text_:g in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11944699 = score(doc=3125,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

L. Egghe ([2008]) studied the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index, counting the authorship of cited articles in a fractional way. But his definition of the gF-index for the case that the article count is fractionalized yielded values that were close to or even larger than the original g-index. Here I propose an alternative definition by which the g-index is modified in such a way that the resulting gm-index is always smaller than the original g-index. Based on the interpretation of the g-index as the highest number of articles of a scientist that received on average g or more citations, in the specification of the new gm-index the articles are counted fractionally not only for the rank but also for the average.

Object

g-index

0.045575015 = product of:
  0.09115003 = sum of:
    0.09115003 = product of:
      0.13672504 = sum of:
        0.052263256 = weight(_text_:h in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052263256 = score(doc=4990,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
        0.08446178 = weight(_text_:g in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08446178 = score(doc=4990,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

h-index

0.045575015 = product of:
  0.09115003 = sum of:
    0.09115003 = product of:
      0.13672504 = sum of:
        0.052263256 = weight(_text_:h in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052263256 = score(doc=287,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
        0.08446178 = weight(_text_:g in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08446178 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

h-index

0.04412341 = product of:
  0.08824682 = sum of:
    0.08824682 = product of:
      0.13237023 = sum of:
        0.03484217 = weight(_text_:h in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03484217 = score(doc=1250,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.31055614 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
        0.09752807 = weight(_text_:g in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09752807 = score(doc=1250,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

h-index
g-index

0.043795615 = product of:
  0.08759123 = sum of:
    0.08759123 = product of:
      0.13138685 = sum of:
        0.036955703 = weight(_text_:h in 957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036955703 = score(doc=957,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 957, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=957)
        0.09443114 = weight(_text_:g in 957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09443114 = score(doc=957,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.5567507 = fieldWeight in 957, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=957)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used in support of decisions about recruitment, career advancement, rewards, and selective funding for scientists. Given the importance of the applications, bibliometricians are obligated to carry out empirical testing of the robustness of the indicators, in simulations of real contexts. In this work, we compare the results of national-scale research assessments at the individual level, based on the following three different indexes: the h-index, the g-index, and "fractional scientific strength" (FSS), an indicator previously proposed by the authors. For each index, we construct and compare rankings lists of all Italian academic researchers working in the hard sciences during the period 2001-2005. The analysis quantifies the shifts in ranks that occur when researchers' productivity rankings by simple indicators such as the h- or g-indexes are compared with those by more accurate FSS.

Object

g-index
h-index

0.04324103 = product of:
  0.08648206 = sum of:
    0.08648206 = product of:
      0.12972309 = sum of:
        0.04526131 = weight(_text_:h in 3470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04526131 = score(doc=3470,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 3470, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3470)
        0.08446178 = weight(_text_:g in 3470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08446178 = score(doc=3470,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 3470, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3470)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of Hirsch's h-index as a joint proxy of the impact and productivity of a scientist's research work continues to gain ground, accompanied by the efforts of bibliometrists to resolve some of its critical issues through the application of a number of more or less sophisticated variants. However, the literature does not reveal any appreciable attempt to overcome the objective problems of measuring h-indexes on a large scale for purposes of comparative evaluation. Scientists may succeed in calculating their own h-indexes but, being unable to compare them to those of their peers, they are unable to obtain truly useful indications of their individual research performance. This study proposes to overcome this gap, measuring the h- and Egghe's g-indexes of all Italian university researchers in the hard sciences over a 5-year window. Descriptive statistics are provided concerning all of the 165 subject fields examined, offering robust benchmarks for those who wish to compare their individual performance to those of their colleagues in the same subject field.

Object

h-index
g-index

0.040591035 = product of:
  0.08118207 = sum of:
    0.08118207 = sum of:
      0.01539821 = weight(_text_:h in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01539821 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04515803 = queryNorm
          0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
      0.035192408 = weight(_text_:g in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035192408 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04515803 = queryNorm
          0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
      0.030591449 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030591449 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15813573 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04515803 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.

Date

21. 3.2023 19:22:02

0.040472493 = product of:
  0.080944985 = sum of:
    0.080944985 = product of:
      0.12141748 = sum of:
        0.036955703 = weight(_text_:h in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036955703 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 414, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=414)
        0.08446178 = weight(_text_:g in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08446178 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 414, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=414)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Deutscher Dokumentartag 1980, Berlin, 29.9.-3.10.1980: IuD und Normung - Neue Kommunikationstechnologie - Berufspolitik - Datenbanken - Betriebsstatistik - Informetrie - Parlamentsdokumentation - Arbeitskreis Senioren - Gesprächskreise. Bearb.: M. von der Laake u. H. Strohl-Goebel

0.038295574 = product of:
  0.07659115 = sum of:
    0.07659115 = product of:
      0.114886716 = sum of:
        0.021776358 = weight(_text_:h in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021776358 = score(doc=1053,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.1940976 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
        0.09311036 = weight(_text_:g in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09311036 = score(doc=1053,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.5489636 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It was argued recently that the g-index is a measure of a researcher's specific impact (i.e., impact per paper) as much as it is a measure of overall impact. While this is true for the productive "core" of publications, it can be argued that the g-index does not differ from the square root of the total number of citations in a bibliometrically meaningful way when the entire publication list is considered. The R-index also has a tendency to follow total impact, leaving only the A-index as a true measure of specific impact. The main difference between the g-index and the h-index is that the former penalizes consistency of impact whereas the latter rewards such consistency. It is concluded that the h-index is a better bibliometric tool than is the g-index, and that the square root of the total number of citations is a convenient measure of a researcher's overall impact.

Footnote

Vgl.: Visscher, A. De: Response to "remarks on the paper by a. De Visscher, 'what does the g-index really measure?' ". In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2013) no.9, S.1960-1962.

Object

g-index

0.037979178 = product of:
  0.075958356 = sum of:
    0.075958356 = product of:
      0.11393753 = sum of:
        0.043552715 = weight(_text_:h in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043552715 = score(doc=417,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
        0.070384815 = weight(_text_:g in 417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070384815 = score(doc=417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.4149775 = fieldWeight in 417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=417)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: NACKE, O.: Zitatenanalyse im engeren Sinne; GERDEL, W.: Datentechnische Methoden in der Referenzanalyse; EISENHARDT, O.-H.: Ergebnisse der Referenzanalyse; KRUG, G.: List-Analyse; LANGE, H.: Requestanalyse; HENZLER, R.G.: Bibliometrische Methoden der Termanalyse; NACKE, O.: Fehlerquellen bei der Zitatenanalyse

0.03519404 = product of:
  0.07038808 = sum of:
    0.07038808 = product of:
      0.10558212 = sum of:
        0.04927427 = weight(_text_:h in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04927427 = score(doc=4453,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.112192824 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.4391927 = fieldWeight in 4453, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4453)
        0.056307852 = weight(_text_:g in 4453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056307852 = score(doc=4453,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16961117 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04515803 = queryNorm
            0.331982 = fieldWeight in 4453, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4453)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recently, it was shown that among existing theoretical models for the h-index, the Glänzel-Schubert model provides the best fit for a chosen example involving the research evaluation of universities. In this brief communication, we propose a thermodynamic explanation for the success of the Glänzel-Schubert model of the h-index.

Object

h-index