-
Schreiber, M.: Do we need the g-index? (2013)
0.04
0.040867403 = product of:
0.061301105 = sum of:
0.024606844 = weight(_text_:m in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024606844 = score(doc=1113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11187479 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.044957645 = queryNorm
0.21994986 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
0.036694262 = product of:
0.073388524 = sum of:
0.073388524 = weight(_text_:de in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.073388524 = score(doc=1113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.193205 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.044957645 = queryNorm
0.37984797 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
-
Schreiber, M.: Uncertainties and ambiguities in percentiles and how to avoid them (2013)
0.03
0.032647606 = product of:
0.048971407 = sum of:
0.024606844 = weight(_text_:m in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024606844 = score(doc=675,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11187479 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.044957645 = queryNorm
0.21994986 = fieldWeight in 675, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=675)
0.02436456 = product of:
0.04872912 = sum of:
0.04872912 = weight(_text_:22 in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04872912 = score(doc=675,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15743402 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044957645 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 675, 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=675)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:52:05
-
Schreiber, M.: Inconsistencies in the highly cited publications indicator (2013)
0.01
0.008202282 = product of:
0.024606844 = sum of:
0.024606844 = weight(_text_:m in 815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024606844 = score(doc=815,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11187479 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.044957645 = queryNorm
0.21994986 = fieldWeight in 815, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=815)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Schreiber, M.: Restricting the h-index to a citation time window : a case study of a timed Hirsch index (2014)
0.01
0.008202282 = product of:
0.024606844 = sum of:
0.024606844 = weight(_text_:m in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024606844 = score(doc=1563,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11187479 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.044957645 = queryNorm
0.21994986 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Schreiber, M.: Empirical evidence for the relevance of fractional scoring in the calculation of percentile rank scores (2013)
0.01
0.007176996 = product of:
0.021530988 = sum of:
0.021530988 = weight(_text_:m in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021530988 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11187479 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.044957645 = queryNorm
0.19245613 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Schreiber, M.: ¬A variant of the h-index to measure recent performance (2015)
0.01
0.007176996 = product of:
0.021530988 = sum of:
0.021530988 = weight(_text_:m in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021530988 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11187479 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.044957645 = queryNorm
0.19245613 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Waltman, L.; Schreiber, M.: On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators (2013)
0.01
0.006151711 = product of:
0.018455133 = sum of:
0.018455133 = weight(_text_:m in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018455133 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11187479 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.044957645 = queryNorm
0.1649624 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Schreiber, M.: Inconsistencies of recently proposed citation impact indicators and how to avoid them (2012)
0.01
0.005126426 = product of:
0.015379278 = sum of:
0.015379278 = weight(_text_:m in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015379278 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11187479 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.044957645 = queryNorm
0.13746867 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4884486 = idf(docFreq=9980, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
