Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Mingers, J.; Macri, F.; Petrovici, D.: Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of business and management (2012) 0.02

0.023945589 = product of:
  0.047891177 = sum of:
    0.047891177 = product of:
      0.07183676 = sum of:
        0.041487742 = weight(_text_:h in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041487742 = score(doc=2741,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.3682743 = fieldWeight in 2741, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2741)
        0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 2741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030349022 = score(doc=2741,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 2741, 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=2741)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract: This paper considers the use of the h-index as a measure of a journal's research quality and contribution. We study a sample of 455 journals in business and management all of which are included in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) and the Association of Business School's peer review journal ranking list. The h-index is compared with both the traditional impact factors, and with the peer review judgements. We also consider two sources of citation data - the WoS itself and Google Scholar. The conclusions are that the h-index is preferable to the impact factor for a variety of reasons, especially the selective coverage of the impact factor and the fact that it disadvantages journals that publish many papers. Google Scholar is also preferred to WoS as a data source. However, the paper notes that it is not sufficient to use any single metric to properly evaluate research achievements.
Object: h-index

Xu, F.; Liu, W.B.; Mingers, J.: New journal classification methods based on the global h-index (2015) 0.02
```
0.023891851 = product of:
  0.047783703 = sum of:
    0.047783703 = product of:
      0.071675554 = sum of:
        0.046384703 = weight(_text_:h in 2684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046384703 = score(doc=2684,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.41174316 = fieldWeight in 2684, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2684)
        0.02529085 = weight(_text_:j in 2684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02529085 = score(doc=2684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 2684, 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=2684)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

In this work we develop new journal classification methods based on the h-index. The introduction of the h-index for research evaluation has attracted much attention in the bibliometric study and research quality evaluation. The main purpose of using an h-index is to compare the index for different research units (e.g. researchers, journals, etc.) to differentiate their research performance. However the h-index is defined by only comparing citations counts of one's own publications, it is doubtful that the h index alone should be used for reliable comparisons among different research units, like researchers or journals. In this paper we propose a new global h-index (Gh-index), where the publications in the core are selected in comparison with all the publications of the units to be evaluated. Furthermore, we introduce some variants of the Gh-index to address the issue of discrimination power. We show that together with the original h-index, they can be used to evaluate and classify academic journals with some distinct advantages, in particular that they can produce an automatic classification into a number of categories without arbitrary cut-off points. We then carry out an empirical study for classification of operations research and management science (OR/MS) journals using this index, and compare it with other well-known journal ranking results such as the Association of Business Schools (ABS) Journal Quality Guide and the Committee of Professors in OR (COPIOR) ranking lists.

Object

h-index

Mingers, J.; Burrell, Q.L.: Modeling citation behavior in Management Science journals (2006) 0.02

0.02240327 = product of:
  0.04480654 = sum of:
    0.04480654 = product of:
      0.06720981 = sum of:
        0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030349022 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
        0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036860786 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 994, 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=994)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 26.12.2007 19:22:05

Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mingers, J.: Statistical significance and effect sizes of differences among research universities at the level of nations and worldwide based on the Leiden rankings (2019) 0.00

0.0042151418 = product of:
  0.0084302835 = sum of:
    0.0084302835 = product of:
      0.02529085 = sum of:
        0.02529085 = weight(_text_:j in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02529085 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04534384 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 5225, 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=5225)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Years