-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.02
0.024628652 = product of:
0.049257305 = sum of:
0.049257305 = product of:
0.09851461 = sum of:
0.09851461 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09851461 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.02
0.024628652 = product of:
0.049257305 = sum of:
0.049257305 = product of:
0.09851461 = sum of:
0.09851461 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09851461 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.02
0.024628652 = product of:
0.049257305 = sum of:
0.049257305 = product of:
0.09851461 = sum of:
0.09851461 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09851461 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
-
Woeginger, G.J.: Generalizations of Egghe's g-index (2009)
0.02
0.024536934 = product of:
0.049073867 = sum of:
0.049073867 = product of:
0.098147735 = sum of:
0.098147735 = weight(_text_:g in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098147735 = score(doc=2857,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 2857, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2857)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper introduces the generalized Egghe-indices as a new family of scientific impact measures for ranking the output of scientific researchers. The definition of this family is strongly inspired by Egghe's well-known g-index. The main contribution of the paper is a family of axiomatic characterizations that characterize every generalized Egghe-index in terms of four axioms.
- Object
- g-Index
-
Visscher, A. De: Response to "remarks on the paper by a. De Visscher, 'what does the g-index really measure?' " (2013)
0.02
0.024536934 = product of:
0.049073867 = sum of:
0.049073867 = product of:
0.098147735 = sum of:
0.098147735 = weight(_text_:g in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098147735 = score(doc=1052,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Visscher, A. De: What does the g-index really measure?. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2290-2293.
- Object
- g-index
-
Prathap, G.: Measures for impact, consistency, and the h- and g-indices (2014)
0.02
0.024536934 = product of:
0.049073867 = sum of:
0.049073867 = product of:
0.098147735 = sum of:
0.098147735 = weight(_text_:g in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098147735 = score(doc=1250,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- g-index
-
Bartolucci, F.: ¬A comparison between the g-index and the h-index based on concentration (2015)
0.02
0.024536934 = product of:
0.049073867 = sum of:
0.049073867 = product of:
0.098147735 = sum of:
0.098147735 = weight(_text_:g in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098147735 = score(doc=2350,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- I discuss how, given a certain number of articles and citations of these articles, the h-index and the g-index are affected by the level of concentration of the citations. This offers the opportunity for a comparison between these 2 indices from a new perspective.
- Object
- g-index
-
Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C.A.; Viel, F.: Assessing the accuracy of the h- and g-indexes for measuring researchers' productivity (2013)
0.02
0.023757784 = product of:
0.047515567 = sum of:
0.047515567 = product of:
0.095031135 = sum of:
0.095031135 = weight(_text_:g in 957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.095031135 = score(doc=957,freq=10.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5567507 = fieldWeight in 957, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=957)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used in support of decisions about recruitment, career advancement, rewards, and selective funding for scientists. Given the importance of the applications, bibliometricians are obligated to carry out empirical testing of the robustness of the indicators, in simulations of real contexts. In this work, we compare the results of national-scale research assessments at the individual level, based on the following three different indexes: the h-index, the g-index, and "fractional scientific strength" (FSS), an indicator previously proposed by the authors. For each index, we construct and compare rankings lists of all Italian academic researchers working in the hard sciences during the period 2001-2005. The analysis quantifies the shifts in ranks that occur when researchers' productivity rankings by simple indicators such as the h- or g-indexes are compared with those by more accurate FSS.
- Object
- g-index
-
Schreiber, M.: ¬An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index (2008)
0.02
0.02342549 = product of:
0.04685098 = sum of:
0.04685098 = product of:
0.09370196 = sum of:
0.09370196 = weight(_text_:g in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09370196 = score(doc=1968,freq=14.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5489636 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. To take into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations, L. Egghe (2006a) proposed the g-index as an improvement of the h-index. I have worked out 26 practical cases of physicists from the Institute of Physics at Chemnitz University of Technology, and compare the h and g values in this study. It is demonstrated that the g-index discriminates better between different citation patterns. This also can be achieved by evaluating B.H. Jin's (2006) A-index, which reflects the average number of citations in the h-core, and interpreting it in conjunction with the h-index. h and A can be combined into the R-index to measure the h-core's citation intensity. I also have determined the A and R values for the 26 datasets. For a better comparison, I utilize interpolated indices. The correlations between the various indices as well as with the total number of papers and the highest citation counts are discussed. The largest Pearson correlation coefficient is found between g and R. Although the correlation between g and h is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either h or g.
-
Visscher, A. De: What does the g-index really measure? (2011)
0.02
0.02342549 = product of:
0.04685098 = sum of:
0.04685098 = product of:
0.09370196 = sum of:
0.09370196 = weight(_text_:g in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09370196 = score(doc=1053,freq=14.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5489636 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- It was argued recently that the g-index is a measure of a researcher's specific impact (i.e., impact per paper) as much as it is a measure of overall impact. While this is true for the productive "core" of publications, it can be argued that the g-index does not differ from the square root of the total number of citations in a bibliometrically meaningful way when the entire publication list is considered. The R-index also has a tendency to follow total impact, leaving only the A-index as a true measure of specific impact. The main difference between the g-index and the h-index is that the former penalizes consistency of impact whereas the latter rewards such consistency. It is concluded that the h-index is a better bibliometric tool than is the g-index, and that the square root of the total number of citations is a convenient measure of a researcher's overall impact.
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Visscher, A. De: Response to "remarks on the paper by a. De Visscher, 'what does the g-index really measure?' ". In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2013) no.9, S.1960-1962.
- Object
- g-index
-
Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998)
0.02
0.021768859 = product of:
0.043537717 = sum of:
0.043537717 = product of:
0.087075435 = sum of:
0.087075435 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.087075435 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 5.1999 19:22:35
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.021768859 = product of:
0.043537717 = sum of:
0.043537717 = product of:
0.087075435 = sum of:
0.087075435 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.087075435 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994)
0.02
0.02155007 = product of:
0.04310014 = sum of:
0.04310014 = product of:
0.08620028 = sum of:
0.08620028 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08620028 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990)
0.02
0.02155007 = product of:
0.04310014 = sum of:
0.04310014 = product of:
0.08620028 = sum of:
0.08620028 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08620028 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:29
-
Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990)
0.02
0.02155007 = product of:
0.04310014 = sum of:
0.04310014 = product of:
0.08620028 = sum of:
0.08620028 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08620028 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15914047 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 18:55:55
-
Egghe, L.: Remarks on the paper by A. De Visscher, "what does the g-index really measure?" (2012)
0.02
0.021469817 = product of:
0.042939633 = sum of:
0.042939633 = product of:
0.085879266 = sum of:
0.085879266 = weight(_text_:g in 463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.085879266 = score(doc=463,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.5031335 = fieldWeight in 463, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=463)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The author presents a different view on properties of impact measures than given in the paper of De Visscher (2011). He argues that a good impact measure works better when citations are concentrated rather than spread out over articles. The author also presents theoretical evidence that the g-index and the R-index can be close to the square root of the total number of citations, whereas this is not the case for the A-index. Here the author confirms an assertion of De Visscher.
- Object
- g-index
-
Wersig, G.: Quantitative Methoden der Benutzerforschung (1981)
0.02
0.021249607 = product of:
0.042499214 = sum of:
0.042499214 = product of:
0.08499843 = sum of:
0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08499843 = score(doc=414,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 414, 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=414)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Harries, G.; Wilkinson, D.; Price, L.; Fairclough, R.; Thelwall, M.: Hyperlinks as a data source for science mapping : making sense of it all (2005)
0.02
0.021249607 = product of:
0.042499214 = sum of:
0.042499214 = product of:
0.08499843 = sum of:
0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08499843 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C.A.; Viel, F.: ¬A robust benchmark for the h- and g-indexes (2010)
0.02
0.021249607 = product of:
0.042499214 = sum of:
0.042499214 = product of:
0.08499843 = sum of:
0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 3470) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08499843 = score(doc=3470,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 3470, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3470)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The use of Hirsch's h-index as a joint proxy of the impact and productivity of a scientist's research work continues to gain ground, accompanied by the efforts of bibliometrists to resolve some of its critical issues through the application of a number of more or less sophisticated variants. However, the literature does not reveal any appreciable attempt to overcome the objective problems of measuring h-indexes on a large scale for purposes of comparative evaluation. Scientists may succeed in calculating their own h-indexes but, being unable to compare them to those of their peers, they are unable to obtain truly useful indications of their individual research performance. This study proposes to overcome this gap, measuring the h- and Egghe's g-indexes of all Italian university researchers in the hard sciences over a 5-year window. Descriptive statistics are provided concerning all of the 165 subject fields examined, offering robust benchmarks for those who wish to compare their individual performance to those of their colleagues in the same subject field.
- Object
- g-index
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The thermodynamics-bibliometrics consilience and the meaning of h-type indices (2012)
0.02
0.021249607 = product of:
0.042499214 = sum of:
0.042499214 = product of:
0.08499843 = sum of:
0.08499843 = weight(_text_:g in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08499843 = score(doc=4990,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17068884 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.04544495 = queryNorm
0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4990, 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=4990)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
