-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.05
0.05300997 = product of:
0.10601994 = sum of:
0.10601994 = sum of:
0.026239151 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026239151 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
0.04292 = weight(_text_:j in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04292 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.2978903 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036860786 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2012.63.issue-3/iwp-2012-0037/iwp-2012-0037.xml?format=INT.
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:35:26
- Footnote
- Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.157-182
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.05
0.050028816 = product of:
0.10005763 = sum of:
0.10005763 = sum of:
0.021646196 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021646196 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.035407193 = weight(_text_:j in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035407193 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.24574696 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.04300425 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04300425 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Eine englische Version dieses Beitrags erscheint unter dem Titel "International visibility of European and in particular German language publications in library and information science" im Tagungsband des 13. Internationalen Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI 2013). Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2013.64.issue-1/iwp-2013-0001/iwp-2013-0001.xml?format=INT.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 14:04:09
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.1, S.1-8
-
Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012)
0.04
0.042881846 = product of:
0.08576369 = sum of:
0.08576369 = sum of:
0.018553881 = weight(_text_:h in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018553881 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030349022 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036860786 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Vgl.: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/iwp.2012.63.issue-2/iwp-2012-0017/iwp-2012-0017.xml?format=INT.
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:23:32
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.2, S.71-80
-
Epifanio, I.: Mapping the asymmetrical citation relationships between journals by h-plots (2014)
0.03
0.031121908 = product of:
0.062243816 = sum of:
0.062243816 = product of:
0.09336572 = sum of:
0.043292392 = weight(_text_:h in 1294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043292392 = score(doc=1294,freq=8.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.38429362 = fieldWeight in 1294, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1294)
0.05007333 = weight(_text_:j in 1294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05007333 = score(doc=1294,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.34753868 = fieldWeight in 1294, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1294)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- I propose the use of h-plots for visualizing the asymmetric relationships between the citing and cited profiles of journals in a common map. With this exploratory tool, we can understand better the journal's dual roles of citing and being cited in a reference network. The h-plot is introduced and its use is validated with a set of 25 journals belonging to the statistics area. The relatedness factor is considered for describing the relations of citations from a journal "i" to a journal "j," and the citations from the journal "j" to the journal "i." More information has been extracted from the h-plot, compared with other statistical techniques for modelling and representing asymmetric data, such as multidimensional unfolding.
-
Bar-Ilan, J.; Levene, M.: ¬The hw-rank : an h-index variant for ranking web pages (2015)
0.03
0.02716828 = product of:
0.05433656 = sum of:
0.05433656 = product of:
0.08150484 = sum of:
0.030923137 = weight(_text_:h in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030923137 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
0.0505817 = weight(_text_:j in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0505817 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.35106707 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Frandsen, T.F.; Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The ripple effect : citation chain reactions of a nobel prize (2013)
0.03
0.026593596 = product of:
0.05318719 = sum of:
0.05318719 = product of:
0.07978079 = sum of:
0.04292 = weight(_text_:j in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04292 = score(doc=654,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.2978903 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
0.036860786 = weight(_text_:22 in 654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036860786 = score(doc=654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 654, 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=654)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper explores the possible citation chain reactions of a Nobel Prize using the mathematician Robert J. Aumann as a case example. The results show that the award of the Nobel Prize in 2005 affected not only the citations to his work, but also affected the citations to the references in his scientific oeuvre. The results indicate that the spillover effect is almost as powerful as the effect itself. We are consequently able to document a ripple effect in which the awarding of the Nobel Prize ignites a citation chain reaction to Aumann's scientific oeuvre and to the references in its nearest citation network. The effect is discussed using innovation decision process theory as a point of departure to identify the factors that created a bandwagon effect leading to the reported observations.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 16:21:09
-
Egghe, L.: Influence of adding or deleting items and sources on the h-index (2010)
0.03
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
-
Zhao, S.X.; Zhang, P.L.; Li, J.; Tan, A.M.; Ye, F.Y.: Abstracting the core subnet of weighted networks based on link strengths (2014)
0.03
0.025265522 = product of:
0.050531045 = sum of:
0.050531045 = product of:
0.07579657 = sum of:
0.045447543 = weight(_text_:h in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045447543 = score(doc=1256,freq=12.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 1256, 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=1256)
0.030349022 = weight(_text_:j in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030349022 = score(doc=1256,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14407988 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 1256, 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=1256)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Most measures of networks are based on the nodes, although links are also elementary units in networks and represent interesting social or physical connections. In this work we suggest an option for exploring networks, called the h-strength, with explicit focus on links and their strengths. The h-strength and its extensions can naturally simplify a complex network to a small and concise subnetwork (h-subnet) but retains the most important links with its core structure. Its applications in 2 typical information networks, the paper cocitation network of a topic (the h-index) and 5 scientific collaboration networks in the field of "water resources," suggest that h-strength and its extensions could be a useful choice for abstracting, simplifying, and visualizing a complex network. Moreover, we observe that the 2 informetric models, the Glänzel-Schubert model and the Hirsch model, roughly hold in the context of the h-strength for the collaboration networks.
-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.02
0.024816414 = product of:
0.04963283 = sum of:
0.04963283 = product of:
0.07444924 = sum of:
0.04373192 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04373192 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.11265446 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.030717323 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030717323 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1587864 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04534384 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 19:22:13
- Object
- h-index
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
