Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022863425 = product of:
  0.04572685 = sum of:
    0.04572685 = product of:
      0.068590276 = sum of:
        0.03787295 = weight(_text_:h in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03787295 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.3361869 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
        0.030717323 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030717323 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

Object

h-index

0.00824617 = product of:
  0.01649234 = sum of:
    0.01649234 = product of:
      0.04947702 = sum of:
        0.04947702 = weight(_text_:h in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04947702 = score(doc=196,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.4391927 = fieldWeight in 196, 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=196)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.