Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Eck, N.J. van"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The inconsistency of the h-index : the case of web accessibility in Western European countries (2012) 0.01 
    0.009778755 = product of:
  0.01955751 = sum of:
    0.01955751 = product of:
      0.058672525 = sum of:
        0.058672525 = weight(_text_:h in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058672525 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.5208185 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis), the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.
    Object
    h-index
  2. Eck, N.J. van; Waltman, L.; Dekker, R.; Berg, J. van den: ¬A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping : multidimensional scaling and VOS (2010) 0.01 
    0.0050581703 = product of:
  0.010116341 = sum of:
    0.010116341 = product of:
      0.030349022 = sum of:
        0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 4112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030349022 = score(doc=4112,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4112, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4112)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  3. Waltman, L.; Calero-Medina, C.; Kosten, J.; Noyons, E.C.M.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van; Visser, M.S.; Wouters, P.: ¬The Leiden ranking 2011/2012 : data collection, indicators, and interpretation (2012) 0.00 
    0.0042151418 = product of:
  0.0084302835 = sum of:
    0.0084302835 = product of:
      0.02529085 = sum of:
        0.02529085 = weight(_text_:j in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02529085 = score(doc=514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Authors