-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Opthof, T.: Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time : principles for comparing sets of documents (2011)
0.01
0.0071022892 = product of:
0.042613734 = sum of:
0.042613734 = weight(_text_:k in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042613734 = score(doc=4485,freq=4.0), product of:
0.12733187 = queryWeight, product of:
3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.33466667 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- We submit newly developed citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks. Citation distributions are-as a rule-highly skewed and should not be arithmetically averaged. With percentile ranks, the citation score of each paper is rated in terms of its percentile in the citation distribution. The percentile ranks approach allows for the formulation of a more abstract indicator scheme that can be used to organize and/or schematize different impact indicators according to three degrees of freedom: the selection of the reference sets, the evaluation criteria, and the choice of whether or not to define the publication sets as independent. Bibliometric data of seven principal investigators (PIs) of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam are used as an exemplary dataset. We demonstrate that the proposed family indicators [R(6), R(100), R(6, k), R(100, k)] are an improvement on averages-based indicators because one can account for the shape of the distributions of citations over papers.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.01
0.006066791 = product of:
0.018200371 = sum of:
0.0085349465 = weight(_text_:d in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0085349465 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.009665425 = product of:
0.028996274 = sum of:
0.028996274 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028996274 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124908194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
Bornmann, L.; Schier, H.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-D.: Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? : a study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes (2011)
0.01
0.0050800308 = product of:
0.015240092 = sum of:
0.007112456 = weight(_text_:d in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007112456 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
0.008127635 = product of:
0.024382904 = sum of:
0.024382904 = weight(_text_:29 in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024382904 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12547383 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 18:29:40
-
Bornmann, L.: On the function of university rankings (2014)
0.00
0.0032510539 = product of:
0.019506322 = sum of:
0.019506322 = product of:
0.058518965 = sum of:
0.058518965 = weight(_text_:29 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058518965 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12547383 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 16:55:03
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.00
0.0032218085 = product of:
0.01933085 = sum of:
0.01933085 = product of:
0.057992548 = sum of:
0.057992548 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057992548 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124908194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.00
0.0021478725 = product of:
0.012887234 = sum of:
0.012887234 = product of:
0.0386617 = sum of:
0.0386617 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0386617 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124908194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013)
0.00
0.0020117066 = product of:
0.012070239 = sum of:
0.012070239 = weight(_text_:d in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012070239 = score(doc=928,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.178113 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Grundsätzlich können wir bei Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft zwischen einer 'qualitative' Form, der Bewertung einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit (z. B. eines Manuskripts oder Forschungsantrags) durch kompetente Peers, und einer 'quantitative' Form, der Bewertung von wissenschaftlicher Arbeit anhand bibliometrischer Indikatoren unterscheiden. Beide Formen der Bewertung sind nicht unumstritten. Die Kritiker des Peer Review sehen vor allem zwei Schwächen des Verfahrens: (1) Verschiedene Gutachter würden kaum in der Bewertung ein und derselben wissenschaftlichen Arbeit übereinstimmen. (2) Gutachterliche Empfehlungen würden systematische Urteilsverzerrungen aufweisen. Gegen die Verwendung von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für die Qualität einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit wird seit Jahren eine Vielzahl von Bedenken geäußert. Zitierhäufigkeiten seien keine 'objektiven' Messungen von wissenschaftlicher Qualität, sondern ein kritisierbares Messkonstrukt. So wird unter anderem kritisiert, dass wissenschaftliche Qualität ein komplexes Phänomen darstelle, das nicht auf einer eindimensionalen Skala (d. h. anhand von Zitierhäufigkeiten) gemessen werden könne. Es werden empirische Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Fairness des Peer Review Verfahrens sowie Forschungsergebnisse zur Güte von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für wissenschaftliche Qualität vorgestellt.
- Language
- d
-
Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: Distributions instead of single numbers : percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers (2014)
0.00
0.0018964482 = product of:
0.011378689 = sum of:
0.011378689 = product of:
0.034136064 = sum of:
0.034136064 = weight(_text_:29 in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034136064 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12547383 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 15:58:21
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007)
0.00
0.0016595729 = product of:
0.009957437 = sum of:
0.009957437 = weight(_text_:d in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009957437 = score(doc=477,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.14693572 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Bornmann, L.: How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics : the statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers (2013)
0.00
0.0016109042 = product of:
0.009665425 = sum of:
0.009665425 = product of:
0.028996274 = sum of:
0.028996274 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028996274 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124908194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 656, 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=656)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:44:17
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011)
0.00
0.0013424202 = product of:
0.008054521 = sum of:
0.008054521 = product of:
0.024163563 = sum of:
0.024163563 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024163563 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.124908194 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? : The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine (2007)
0.00
0.0011854094 = product of:
0.007112456 = sum of:
0.007112456 = weight(_text_:d in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007112456 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? : a comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine (2008)
0.00
0.0011854094 = product of:
0.007112456 = sum of:
0.007112456 = weight(_text_:d in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007112456 = score(doc=1608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.D.: Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? (2009)
0.00
0.0011854094 = product of:
0.007112456 = sum of:
0.007112456 = weight(_text_:d in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007112456 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs number of publications (for the quantity dimension) and total citation counts (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between number of publications and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between total citation counts and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Universality of citation distributions : a validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry (2009)
0.00
0.0011854094 = product of:
0.007112456 = sum of:
0.007112456 = weight(_text_:d in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007112456 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multilevel-statistical reformulation of citation-based university rankings : the Leiden ranking 2011/2012 (2013)
0.00
0.0011854094 = product of:
0.007112456 = sum of:
0.007112456 = weight(_text_:d in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007112456 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Mutz, R.; Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions : a multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex-ante and ex-post peer evaluation data from the Austrian science fund (2015)
0.00
0.0011854094 = product of:
0.007112456 = sum of:
0.007112456 = weight(_text_:d in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007112456 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008)
0.00
9.483275E-4 = product of:
0.0056899646 = sum of:
0.0056899646 = weight(_text_:d in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0056899646 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06776731 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03566941 = queryNorm
0.08396327 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
