-
Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014)
0.02
0.022910569 = product of:
0.045821138 = sum of:
0.045821138 = product of:
0.0687317 = sum of:
0.02529085 = weight(_text_:j in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02529085 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
0.043440852 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043440852 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.02
0.022910569 = product of:
0.045821138 = sum of:
0.045821138 = product of:
0.0687317 = sum of:
0.02529085 = weight(_text_:j in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02529085 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 2590, 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=2590)
0.043440852 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043440852 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
-
Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008)
0.02
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
-
Kreider, J.: ¬The correlation of local citation data with citation data from Journal Citation Reports (1999)
0.02
0.02240327 = product of:
0.04480654 = sum of:
0.04480654 = product of:
0.06720981 = sum of:
0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030349022 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036860786 = score(doc=102,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 102, 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=102)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
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
-
Albarrán, P.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: References made and citations received by scientific articles (2011)
0.02
0.02240327 = product of:
0.04480654 = sum of:
0.04480654 = product of:
0.06720981 = sum of:
0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030349022 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036860786 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4185, 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=4185)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This article studies massive evidence about references made and citations received after a 5-year citation window by 3.7 million articles published in 1998 to 2002 in 22 scientific fields. We find that the distributions of references made and citations received share a number of basic features across sciences. Reference distributions are rather skewed to the right while citation distributions are even more highly skewed: The mean is about 20 percentage points to the right of the median, and articles with a remarkable or an outstanding number of citations represent about 9% of the total. Moreover, the existence of a power law representing the upper tail of citation distributions cannot be rejected in 17 fields whose articles represent 74.7% of the total. Contrary to the evidence in other contexts, the value of the scale parameter is above 3.5 in 13 of the 17 cases. Finally, power laws are typically small, but capture a considerable proportion of the total citations received.
-
Hicks, D.; Wang, J.: Coverage and overlap of the new social sciences and humanities journal lists (2011)
0.02
0.02240327 = product of:
0.04480654 = sum of:
0.04480654 = product of:
0.06720981 = sum of:
0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030349022 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 4192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036860786 = score(doc=4192,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4192, 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=4192)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:21:28
-
Li, J.; Shi, D.: Sleeping beauties in genius work : when were they awakened? (2016)
0.02
0.02240327 = product of:
0.04480654 = sum of:
0.04480654 = product of:
0.06720981 = sum of:
0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030349022 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036860786 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:13:32
-
Renn, O.; Schnabl, J.: Forschungsmetriken: Ignorieren, boykottieren oder nutzen? : Forschungsmetriken in die Praxis gebracht (2017)
0.02
0.021734625 = product of:
0.04346925 = sum of:
0.04346925 = product of:
0.065203875 = sum of:
0.02473851 = weight(_text_:h in 5633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02473851 = score(doc=5633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 5633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5633)
0.040465362 = weight(_text_:j in 5633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040465362 = score(doc=5633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.28085366 = fieldWeight in 5633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5633)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- B.I.T.online. 20(2017) H.3, S.229-235
-
Antonakis, J.; Lalive, R.: Quantifying scholarly impact : IQp versus the Hirsch h (2008)
0.02
0.021054601 = product of:
0.042109203 = sum of:
0.042109203 = product of:
0.0631638 = sum of:
0.03787295 = weight(_text_:h in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03787295 = score(doc=1722,freq=12.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.3361869 = fieldWeight in 1722, 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=1722)
0.02529085 = weight(_text_:j in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02529085 = score(doc=1722,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1722, 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=1722)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Hirsch's (2005) h index of scholarly output has generated substantial interest and wide acceptance because of its apparent ability to quantify scholarly impact simply and accurately. We show that the excitement surrounding h is premature for three reasons: h stagnates with increasing scientific age; it is highly dependent on publication quantity; and it is highly dependent on field-specific citation rates. Thus, it is not useful for comparing scholars across disciplines. We propose the scholarly index of quality and productivity (IQp) as an alternative to h. The new index takes into account a scholar's total impact and also corrects for field-specific citation rates, scholarly productivity, and scientific age. The IQp accurately predicts group membership on a common metric, as tested on a sample of 80 scholars from three populations: (a) Nobel winners in physics (n = 10), chemistry (n = 10), medicine (n = 10), and economics (n = 10), and towering psychologists (n = 10); and scholars who have made more modest contributions to science including randomly selected (b) fellows (n = 15) and (c) members (n = 15) of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The IQp also correlates better with expert ratings of greatness than does the h index.
-
Huang, H.; Andrews, J.; Tang, J.: Citation characterization and impact normalization in bioinformatics journals (2012)
0.02
0.020491295 = product of:
0.04098259 = sum of:
0.04098259 = product of:
0.061473884 = sum of:
0.018553881 = weight(_text_:h in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018553881 = score(doc=69,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 69, 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=69)
0.04292 = weight(_text_:j in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04292 = score(doc=69,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.2978903 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Schlögl, C.; Gorraiz, J.: Sind Downloads die besseren Zeitschriftennutzungsdaten? : Ein Vergleich von Download- und Zitationsidikatoren (2012)
0.02
0.019017797 = product of:
0.038035594 = sum of:
0.038035594 = product of:
0.057053387 = sum of:
0.021646196 = weight(_text_:h in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021646196 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
0.035407193 = weight(_text_:j in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035407193 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.24574696 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 59(2012) H.2, S.87-95
-
Schmitz, J.; Arning, U.; Peters, I.: handbuch.io : Handbuch CoScience / Messung von wissenschaftlichem Impact (2015)
0.02
0.019017797 = product of:
0.038035594 = sum of:
0.038035594 = product of:
0.057053387 = sum of:
0.021646196 = weight(_text_:h in 2189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021646196 = score(doc=2189,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 2189, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2189)
0.035407193 = weight(_text_:j in 2189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035407193 = score(doc=2189,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.24574696 = fieldWeight in 2189, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2189)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-Index
-
Ding, Y.; Yan, E.; Frazho, A.; Caverlee, J.: PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks (2009)
0.02
0.018862724 = product of:
0.03772545 = sum of:
0.03772545 = product of:
0.056588173 = sum of:
0.026239151 = weight(_text_:h in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026239151 = score(doc=3161,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 3161, 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=3161)
0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030349022 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 3161, 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=3161)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper studies how varied damping factors in the PageRank algorithm influence the ranking of authors and proposes weighted PageRank algorithms. We selected the 108 most highly cited authors in the information retrieval (IR) area from the 1970s to 2008 to form the author co-citation network. We calculated the ranks of these 108 authors based on PageRank with the damping factor ranging from 0.05 to 0.95. In order to test the relationship between different measures, we compared PageRank and weighted PageRank results with the citation ranking, h-index, and centrality measures. We found that in our author co-citation network, citation rank is highly correlated with PageRank with different damping factors and also with different weighted PageRank algorithms; citation rank and PageRank are not significantly correlated with centrality measures; and h-index rank does not significantly correlate with centrality measures but does significantly correlate with other measures. The key factors that have impact on the PageRank of authors in the author co-citation network are being co-cited with important authors.
-
Liu, D.-R.; Shih, M.-J.: Hybrid-patent classification based on patent-network analysis (2011)
0.02
0.018669393 = product of:
0.037338786 = sum of:
0.037338786 = product of:
0.056008175 = sum of:
0.02529085 = weight(_text_:j in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02529085 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
0.030717323 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030717323 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:04:21
-
Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023)
0.02
0.018669393 = product of:
0.037338786 = sum of:
0.037338786 = product of:
0.056008175 = sum of:
0.02529085 = weight(_text_:j in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02529085 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
0.030717323 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030717323 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 18:37:33
-
Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023)
0.02
0.018669393 = product of:
0.037338786 = sum of:
0.037338786 = product of:
0.056008175 = sum of:
0.02529085 = weight(_text_:j in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02529085 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = 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)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
0.030717323 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030717323 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = 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)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:07:12
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Abdoli, M.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: Why are coauthored academic articles more cited : higher quality or larger audience? (2023)
0.02
0.018669393 = product of:
0.037338786 = sum of:
0.037338786 = product of:
0.056008175 = sum of:
0.02529085 = weight(_text_:j in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02529085 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
0.030717323 = weight(_text_:22 in 995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030717323 = score(doc=995,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 995, 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=995)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 6.2023 18:11:50
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.02
0.018471558 = product of:
0.036943115 = sum of:
0.036943115 = product of:
0.05541467 = sum of:
0.018553881 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018553881 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036860786 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 3. 1.2007 17:22:03
-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.02
0.018471558 = product of:
0.036943115 = sum of:
0.036943115 = product of:
0.05541467 = sum of:
0.018553881 = weight(_text_:h in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018553881 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036860786 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:12:35
