Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bensman, S.J."
  • × theme_ss:"Citation indexing"
  1. Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013) 0.03 
    0.028787265 = product of:
  0.05757453 = sum of:
    0.05757453 = sum of:
      0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007654148 = score(doc=1149,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04992038 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper presents a test of the validity of using Google Scholar to evaluate the publications of researchers by comparing the premises on which its search engine, PageRank, is based, to those of Garfield's theory of citation indexing. It finds that the premises are identical and that PageRank and Garfield's theory of citation indexing validate each other.
    Date
    17.12.2013 11:02:22
    Type
    a
  2. Bensman, S.J.: Garfield and the impact factors (2007) 0.00 
    0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 4680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=4680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  3. Bensman, S.J.: Distributional differences of the impact factor in the sciences versus the social sciences : an analysis of the probabilistic structure of the 2005 journal citation reports (2008) 0.00 
    0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=1953,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper examines the probability structure of the 2005 Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by analyzing the Impact Factor distributions of their journals. The distribution of the SCI journals corresponded with a distribution generally modeled by the negative binomial distribution, whereas the SSCI distribution fit the Poisson distribution modeling random, rare events. Both Impact Factor distributions were positively skewed - the SCI much more so than the SSCI - indicating excess variance. One of the causes of this excess variance was that the journals highest in the Impact Factor in both JCRs tended to class in subject categories well funded by the National Institutes of Health. The main reason for the SCI Impact Factor distribution being more skewed than the SSCI one was that review journals defining disciplinary paradigms play a much more important role in the sciences than in the social sciences.
    Type
    a

Years

Types

Themes