Search (214 results, page 1 of 11)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.08 
    0.07944219 = product of:
  0.15888438 = sum of:
    0.15888438 = sum of:
      0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08499843 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.073885955 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.073885955 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  2. D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011) 0.04 
    0.039721094 = product of:
  0.07944219 = sum of:
    0.07944219 = sum of:
      0.042499214 = weight(_text_:g in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042499214 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
      0.036942977 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036942977 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:06:52
  3. ¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012) 0.04 
    0.039721094 = product of:
  0.07944219 = sum of:
    0.07944219 = sum of:
      0.042499214 = weight(_text_:g in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042499214 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
      0.036942977 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.036942977 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = 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)
    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).
  4. Schreiber, M.: Revisiting the g-index : the average number of citations in the g-core (2009) 0.03 
    0.034700464 = product of:
  0.06940093 = sum of:
    0.06940093 = product of:
      0.13880186 = sum of:
        0.13880186 = weight(_text_:g in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13880186 = score(doc=3313,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.81318647 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The g-index is discussed in terms of the average number of citations of the publications in the g-core, showing that it combines features of the h-index and the A-index in one number. For a visualization, data of 8 famous physicists are presented and analyzed. In comparison with the h-index, the g-index increases between 67% and 144%, on average by a factor of 2.
    Object
    g-index
  5. Stvilia, B.; Hinnant, C.C.; Schindler, K.; Worrall, A.; Burnett, G.; Burnett, K.; Kazmer, M.M.; Marty, P.F.: Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab (2011) 0.03 
    0.033100914 = product of:
  0.06620183 = sum of:
    0.06620183 = sum of:
      0.035416014 = weight(_text_:g in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035416014 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
      0.030785816 = weight(_text_:22 in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030785816 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4191, 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=4191)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 13:19:42
  6. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.03 
    0.033100914 = product of:
  0.06620183 = sum of:
    0.06620183 = sum of:
      0.035416014 = weight(_text_:g in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035416014 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.030785816 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030785816 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
  7. 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) 0.03 
    0.033100914 = product of:
  0.06620183 = sum of:
    0.06620183 = sum of:
      0.035416014 = weight(_text_:g in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035416014 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
      0.030785816 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030785816 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:37:33
  8. Cerda-Cosme, R.; Méndez, E.: Analysis of shared research data in Spanish scientific papers about COVID-19 : a first approach (2023) 0.03 
    0.033100914 = product of:
  0.06620183 = sum of:
    0.06620183 = sum of:
      0.035416014 = weight(_text_:g in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035416014 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 916, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=916)
      0.030785816 = weight(_text_:22 in 916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030785816 = score(doc=916,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 916, 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=916)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta-research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID-19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:02
  9. Zhang, Y.; Wu, M.; Zhang, G.; Lu, J.: Stepping beyond your comfort zone : diffusion-based network analytics for knowledge trajectory recommendation (2023) 0.03 
    0.033100914 = product of:
  0.06620183 = sum of:
    0.06620183 = sum of:
      0.035416014 = weight(_text_:g in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035416014 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 994, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=994)
      0.030785816 = weight(_text_:22 in 994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030785816 = score(doc=994,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:07:12
  10. Schreiber, M.: Fractionalized counting of publications for the g-Index (2009) 0.03 
    0.030051483 = product of:
  0.060102966 = sum of:
    0.060102966 = product of:
      0.12020593 = sum of:
        0.12020593 = weight(_text_:g in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12020593 = score(doc=3125,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    L. Egghe ([2008]) studied the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index, counting the authorship of cited articles in a fractional way. But his definition of the gF-index for the case that the article count is fractionalized yielded values that were close to or even larger than the original g-index. Here I propose an alternative definition by which the g-index is modified in such a way that the resulting gm-index is always smaller than the original g-index. Based on the interpretation of the g-index as the highest number of articles of a scientist that received on average g or more citations, in the specification of the new gm-index the articles are counted fractionally not only for the rank but also for the average.
    Object
    g-index
  11. Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010) 0.03 
    0.030051483 = product of:
  0.060102966 = sum of:
    0.060102966 = product of:
      0.12020593 = sum of:
        0.12020593 = weight(_text_:g in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12020593 = score(doc=3418,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
    Object
    g-index
  12. Rousseau, R.: Egghe's g-index is not a proper concentration measure (2015) 0.03 
    0.030051483 = product of:
  0.060102966 = sum of:
    0.060102966 = product of:
      0.12020593 = sum of:
        0.12020593 = weight(_text_:g in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12020593 = score(doc=1864,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Object
    g-index
  13. Folly, G.; Hajtman, B.; Nagy, J.I.; Ruff, I.: Some methodological problems in ranking scientists by citation analysis (1981) 0.03 
    0.028332809 = product of:
  0.056665618 = sum of:
    0.056665618 = product of:
      0.113331236 = sum of:
        0.113331236 = weight(_text_:g in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113331236 = score(doc=3275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.663964 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  14. Schreiber, M.: Do we need the g-index? (2013) 0.03 
    0.028332809 = product of:
  0.056665618 = sum of:
    0.056665618 = product of:
      0.113331236 = sum of:
        0.113331236 = weight(_text_:g in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113331236 = score(doc=1113,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.663964 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Using a very small sample of 8 data sets it was recently shown by De Visscher (2011) that the g-index is very close to the square root of the total number of citations. It was argued that there is no bibliometrically meaningful difference. Using another somewhat larger empirical sample of 26 data sets I show that the difference may be larger and I argue in favor of the g-index.
    Object
    g-index
  15. Hovden, R.: Bibliometrics for Internet media : applying the h-index to YouTube (2013) 0.03 
    0.027717413 = product of:
  0.055434827 = sum of:
    0.055434827 = product of:
      0.11086965 = sum of:
        0.11086965 = weight(_text_:g in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11086965 = score(doc=1111,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.6495425 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.
    Object
    g-index
  16. Tonta, Y.; Ünal, Y.: Scatter of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in document delivery requests (2005) 0.03 
    0.02648073 = product of:
  0.05296146 = sum of:
    0.05296146 = sum of:
      0.028332809 = weight(_text_:g in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028332809 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.165991 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
      0.024628652 = weight(_text_:22 in 3271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024628652 = score(doc=3271,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04544495 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3271, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3271)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this paper we investigate the scattering of journals and literature obsolescence reflected in more than 137,000 document delivery requests submitted to a national document delivery service. We first summarize the major findings of the study with regards to the performance of the service. We then identify the "core" journals from which article requests were satisfied and address the following research questions: (a) Does the distribution of (core) journals conform to the Bradford's Law of Scattering? (b) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and impact factors, journals with high impact factors being used more often than the rest? (c) Is there a relationship between usage of journals and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being used more often than the rest? (d) What is the median age of use (half-life) of requested articles in general? (e) Do requested articles that appear in core journals get obsolete more slowly? (f) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and journal impact factors, journals with high impact factors being obsolete more slowly? (g) Is there a relationship between obsolescence and total citation counts, journals with high total citation counts being obsolete more slowly? Based an the analysis of findings, we found that the distribution of highly and moderately used journal titles conform to Bradford's Law. The median age of use was 8 years for all requested articles. Ninety percent of the articles requested were 21 years of age or younger. Articles that appeared in 168 core journal titles seem to get obsolete slightly more slowly than those of all titles. We observed no statistically significant correlations between the frequency of journal use and ISI journal impact factors, and between the frequency of journal use and ISI- (Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) cited half-lives for the most heavily used 168 core journal titles. There was a weak correlation between usage of journals and ISI-reported total citation counts. No statistically significant relationship was found between median age of use and journal impact factors and between median age of use and total citation counts. There was a weak negative correlation between ISI journal impact factors and cited half-lives of 168 core journals, and a weak correlation between ISI citation halflives and use half-lives of core journals. No correlation was found between cited half-lives of 168 core journals and their corresponding total citation counts as reported by ISI. Findings of the current study are discussed along with those of other studies.
    Date
    20. 3.2005 10:54:22
  17. Egghe, L.: Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship (2008) 0.03 
    0.026025347 = product of:
  0.052050695 = sum of:
    0.052050695 = product of:
      0.10410139 = sum of:
        0.10410139 = weight(_text_:g in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10410139 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.60988986 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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
    g-index
  18. Egghe, L.: ¬A good normalized impact and concentration measure (2014) 0.03 
    0.025042903 = product of:
  0.050085805 = sum of:
    0.050085805 = product of:
      0.10017161 = sum of:
        0.10017161 = weight(_text_:g in 1508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10017161 = score(doc=1508,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5868668 = fieldWeight in 1508, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    It is shown that a normalized version of the g-index is a good normalized impact and concentration measure. A proposal for such a measure by Bartolucci is improved.
    Object
    g-index
  19. Karlsson, A.; Hammarfelt, B.; Steinhauer, H.J.; Falkman, G.; Olson, N.; Nelhans, G.; Nolin, J.: Modeling uncertainty in bibliometrics and information retrieval : an information fusion approach (2015) 0.03 
    0.025042903 = product of:
  0.050085805 = sum of:
    0.050085805 = product of:
      0.10017161 = sum of:
        0.10017161 = weight(_text_:g in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10017161 = score(doc=1696,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5868668 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  20. Egghe, L.: ¬The influence of transformations on the h-index and the g-index (2008) 0.02 
    0.024791209 = product of:
  0.049582418 = sum of:
    0.049582418 = product of:
      0.099164836 = sum of:
        0.099164836 = weight(_text_:g in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099164836 = score(doc=1881,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04544495 = queryNorm
            0.5809685 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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
    g-index

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 195
  • d 17
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 210
  • s 3
  • m 2
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications