Aksnes, D.W.: Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution (2006)
0.00
0.001757696 = product of:
0.003515392 = sum of:
0.003515392 = product of:
0.007030784 = sum of:
0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 4925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007030784 = score(doc=4925,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4925, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this study scientists were asked about their own publication history and their citation counts. The study shows that the citation counts of the publications correspond reasonably well with the authors' own assessments of scientific contribution. Generally, citations proved to have the highest accuracy in identifying either major or minor contributions. Nevertheless, according to these judgments, citations are not a reliable indicator of scientific contribution at the level of the individual article. In the construction of relative citation indicators, the average citation rate of the subfield appears to be slightly more appropriate as a reference standard than the journal citation rate. The study confirms that review articles are cited more frequently than other publication types. Compared to the significance authors attach to these articles they appear to be considerably "overcited." However, there were only marginal differences in the citation rates between empirical, methods, and theoretical contributions.
- Type
- a
