Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025265522 = product of:
  0.050531045 = sum of:
    0.050531045 = product of:
      0.07579657 = sum of:
        0.045447543 = weight(_text_:h in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045447543 = score(doc=3336,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 3336, 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=3336)
        0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 3336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030349022 = score(doc=3336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 3336, 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=3336)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Adding or deleting items such as self-citations has an influence on the h-index of an author. This influence will be proved mathematically in this article. We hereby prove the experimental finding in E. Gianoli and M.A. Molina-Montenegro ([2009]) that the influence of adding or deleting self-citations on the h-index is greater for low values of the h-index. Why this is logical also is shown by a simple theoretical example. Adding or deleting sources such as adding or deleting minor contributions of an author also has an influence on the h-index of this author; this influence is modeled in this article. This model explains some practical examples found in X. Hu, R. Rousseau, and J. Chen (in press).

Object

h-index

0.024355765 = product of:
  0.04871153 = sum of:
    0.04871153 = product of:
      0.07306729 = sum of:
        0.012369255 = weight(_text_:h in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012369255 = score(doc=81,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
        0.06069804 = weight(_text_:j in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06069804 = score(doc=81,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.42128047 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Papers written by several authors can be classified according to the countries of the author affiliations. The empirical part of this paper consists of two datasets. One dataset consists of 1,035 papers retrieved via the search "pedagog*" in the years 2004 and 2005 (up to October) in Academic Search Elite which is a case where phi(m) = the number of papers with m =1, 2,3 ... authors is decreasing, hence most of the papers have a low number of authors. Here we find that #, m = the number of times a country occurs j times in a m-authored paper, j =1, ..., m-1 is decreasing and that # m, m is much higher than all the other #j, m values. The other dataset consists of 3,271 papers retrieved via the search "enzyme" in the year 2005 (up to October) in the same database which is a case of a non-decreasing phi(m): most papers have 3 or 4 authors and we even find many papers with a much higher number of authors. In this case we show again that # m, m is much higher than the other #j, m values but that #j, m is not decreasing anymore in j =1, ..., m-1, although #1, m is (apart from # m, m) the largest number amongst the #j,m. The combinatorial part gives a proof of the fact that #j,m decreases for j = 1, m-1, supposing that all cases are equally possible. This shows that the first dataset is more conform with this model than the second dataset. Explanations for these findings are given. From the data we also find the (we think: new) distribution of number of papers with n =1, 2,3,... countries (i.e. where there are n different countries involved amongst the m (a n) authors of a paper): a fast decreasing function e.g. as a power law with a very large Lotka exponent.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.427-432

0.0102391075 = product of:
  0.020478215 = sum of:
    0.020478215 = product of:
      0.061434645 = sum of:
        0.061434645 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061434645 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

0.009219498 = product of:
  0.018438997 = sum of:
    0.018438997 = product of:
      0.05531699 = sum of:
        0.05531699 = weight(_text_:h in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05531699 = score(doc=147,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

When there are a group of articles and the present time is fixed we can determine the unique number h being the number of articles that received h or more citations while the other articles received a number of citations which is not larger than h. In this article, the time dependence of the h-index is determined. This is important to describe the expected career evolution of a scientist's work or of a journal's production in a fixed year.

0.009219498 = product of:
  0.018438997 = sum of:
    0.018438997 = product of:
      0.05531699 = sum of:
        0.05531699 = weight(_text_:h in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05531699 = score(doc=695,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An h-type index is proposed which depends on the obtained citations of articles belonging to the h-core. This weighted h-index, denoted as hw, is presented in a continuous setting and in a discrete one. It is shown that in a continuous setting the new index enjoys many good properties. In the discrete setting some small deviations from the ideal may occur.

Object

h-index

0.008837023 = product of:
  0.017674046 = sum of:
    0.017674046 = product of:
      0.053022135 = sum of:
        0.053022135 = weight(_text_:h in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053022135 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.

Object

h-index

0.008761008 = product of:
  0.017522017 = sum of:
    0.017522017 = product of:
      0.052566048 = sum of:
        0.052566048 = weight(_text_:j in 3464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052566048 = score(doc=3464,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.3648396 = fieldWeight in 3464, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3464)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The discrete Lotka power function describes the number of sources (e.g., authors) with n = 1, 2, 3, ... items (e.g., publications). As in econometrics, informetrics theory requires functions of a continuous variable j, replacing the discrete variable n. Now j represents item densities instead of number of items. The continuous Lotka power function describes the density of sources with item density j. The discrete Lotka function one obtains from data, obtained empirically; the continuous Lotka function is the one needed when one wants to apply Lotkaian informetrics, i.e., to determine properties that can be derived from the (continuous) model. It is, hence, important to know the relations between the two models. We show that the exponents of the discrete Lotka function (if not too high, i.e., within limits encountered in practice) and of the continuous Lotka function are approximately the same. This is important to know in applying theoretical results (from the continuous model), derived from practical data.

0.008746384 = product of:
  0.017492767 = sum of:
    0.017492767 = product of:
      0.052478302 = sum of:
        0.052478302 = weight(_text_:h in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052478302 = score(doc=1878,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.

Object

h-index

0.008746384 = product of:
  0.017492767 = sum of:
    0.017492767 = product of:
      0.052478302 = sum of:
        0.052478302 = weight(_text_:h in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052478302 = score(doc=683,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 683, 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=683)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

h-index

0.008148963 = product of:
  0.016297925 = sum of:
    0.016297925 = product of:
      0.048893772 = sum of:
        0.048893772 = weight(_text_:h in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048893772 = score(doc=2009,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.4340154 = fieldWeight in 2009, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2009)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The article studies the influence of the query formulation of a topic on its h-index. In order to generate pure random sets of documents, we used N-grams (N variable) to measure this influence: strings of zeros, truncated at the end. The used databases are WoS and Scopus. The formula h=T**1/alpha, proved in Egghe and Rousseau (2006) where T is the number of retrieved documents and is Lotka's exponent, is confirmed being a concavely increasing function of T. We also give a formula for the relation between h and N the length of the N-gram: h=D10**(-N/alpha) where D is a constant, a convexly decreasing function, which is found in our experiments. Nonlinear regression on h=T**1/alpha gives an estimation of , which can then be used to estimate the h-index of the entire database (Web of Science [WoS] and Scopus): h=S**1/alpha, , where S is the total number of documents in the database.

Object

h-index

0.008067061 = product of:
  0.016134122 = sum of:
    0.016134122 = product of:
      0.048402365 = sum of:
        0.048402365 = weight(_text_:h in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048402365 = score(doc=1881,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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

0.007574591 = product of:
  0.015149182 = sum of:
    0.015149182 = product of:
      0.045447543 = sum of:
        0.045447543 = weight(_text_:h in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045447543 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  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

0.0072886534 = product of:
  0.014577307 = sum of:
    0.014577307 = product of:
      0.04373192 = sum of:
        0.04373192 = weight(_text_:h in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04373192 = score(doc=4217,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang's h-sequences are above the "normal" ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author.

Object

h-index

0.0061846273 = product of:
  0.012369255 = sum of:
    0.012369255 = product of:
      0.037107762 = sum of:
        0.037107762 = weight(_text_:h in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037107762 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 1597, 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=1597)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

h-index

0.0061434647 = product of:
  0.012286929 = sum of:
    0.012286929 = product of:
      0.036860786 = sum of:
        0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036860786 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.0061434647 = product of:
  0.012286929 = sum of:
    0.012286929 = product of:
      0.036860786 = sum of:
        0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036860786 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2558, 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=2558)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 8.2004 19:17:22

0.0058309226 = product of:
  0.011661845 = sum of:
    0.011661845 = product of:
      0.034985535 = sum of:
        0.034985535 = weight(_text_:h in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034985535 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.31055614 = fieldWeight in 6759, 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=6759)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

h-index

0.0051020575 = product of:
  0.010204115 = sum of:
    0.010204115 = product of:
      0.030612344 = sum of:
        0.030612344 = weight(_text_:h in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030612344 = score(doc=3124,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.27173662 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present a rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and prove that it is a power law (hence a straight line in the log-log scale). This is confirmed by experimental data of Pyykkö and by data produced in this article on 206 mathematics journals. This distribution is of a completely different nature than the impact factor (IF) rank-order distribution which (as proved in a previous article) is S-shaped. This is also confirmed by our example. Only in the log-log scale of the h-index distribution do we notice a concave deviation of the straight line for higher ranks. This phenomenon is discussed.

Object

h-index

0.004373192 = product of:
  0.008746384 = sum of:
    0.008746384 = product of:
      0.026239151 = sum of:
        0.026239151 = weight(_text_:h in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026239151 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 4994, 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=4994)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contrary to what one might expect, Nobel laureates and Fields medalists have a rather large fraction (10% or more) of uncited publications. This is the case for (in total) 75 examined researchers from the fields of mathematics (Fields medalists), physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine (Nobel laureates). We study several indicators for these researchers, including the h-index, total number of publications, average number of citations per publication, the number (and fraction) of uncited publications, and their interrelations. The most remarkable result is a positive correlation between the h-index and the number of uncited articles. We also present a Lotkaian model, which partially explains the empirically found regularities.