-
Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015)
0.04
0.035278548 = product of:
0.05291782 = sum of:
0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006896985 = score(doc=3809,freq=24.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.046020836 = sum of:
0.027656946 = weight(_text_:de in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027656946 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.14244299 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.01836389 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01836389 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This year marks 350 years since the inaugural publications of both the Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665 and considered the birth of the peer-reviewed journal article. This form of scholarly communication has not only remained the dominant model for disseminating new knowledge (particularly for science and medicine), but has also increased substantially in volume. Derek de Solla Price - the "father of scientometrics" (Merton and Garfield, 1986, p. vii) - was the first to document the exponential increase in scientific journals and showed that "scientists have always felt themselves to be awash in a sea of the scientific literature" (Price, 1963, p. 15), as, for example, expressed at the 1948 Royal Society's Scientific Information Conference: Not for the first time in history, but more acutely than ever before, there was a fear that scientists would be overwhelmed, that they would be no longer able to control the vast amounts of potentially relevant material that were pouring forth from the world's presses, that science itself was under threat (Bawden and Robinson, 2008, p. 183).
One of the solutions to help scientists filter the most relevant publications and, thus, to stay current on developments in their fields during the transition from "little science" to "big science", was the introduction of citation indexing as a Wellsian "World Brain" (Garfield, 1964) of scientific information: It is too much to expect a research worker to spend an inordinate amount of time searching for the bibliographic descendants of antecedent papers. It would not be excessive to demand that the thorough scholar check all papers that have cited or criticized such papers, if they could be located quickly. The citation index makes this check practicable (Garfield, 1955, p. 108). In retrospective, citation indexing can be perceived as a pre-social web version of crowdsourcing, as it is based on the concept that the community of citing authors outperforms indexers in highlighting cognitive links between papers, particularly on the level of specific ideas and concepts (Garfield, 1983). Over the last 50 years, citation analysis and more generally, bibliometric methods, have developed from information retrieval tools to research evaluation metrics, where they are presumed to make scientific funding more efficient and effective (Moed, 2006). However, the dominance of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has also led to significant goal displacement (Merton, 1957) and the oversimplification of notions of "research productivity" and "scientific quality", creating adverse effects such as salami publishing, honorary authorships, citation cartels, and misuse of indicators (Binswanger, 2015; Cronin and Sugimoto, 2014; Frey and Osterloh, 2006; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Weingart, 2005).
Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
There will soon be a critical mass of web-based digital objects and usage statistics on which to model scholars' communication behaviors - publishing, posting, blogging, scanning, reading, downloading, glossing, linking, citing, recommending, acknowledging - and with which to track their scholarly influence and impact, broadly conceived and broadly felt (Cronin, 2005, p. 196). A decade after Cronin's prediction and five years after the coining of altmetrics, the time seems ripe to reflect upon the role of social media in scholarly communication. This Special Issue does so by providing an overview of current research on the indicators and metrics grouped under the umbrella term of altmetrics, on their relationships with traditional indicators of scientific activity, and on the uses that are made of the various social media platforms - on which these indicators are based - by scientists of various disciplines.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
- Type
- a
-
Visscher, A. De: What does the g-index really measure? (2011)
0.03
0.034890242 = product of:
0.05233536 = sum of:
0.012415992 = weight(_text_:a in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012415992 = score(doc=1053,freq=28.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.23833402 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
28.0 = termFreq=28.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
0.039919365 = product of:
0.07983873 = sum of:
0.07983873 = weight(_text_:de in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07983873 = score(doc=1053,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.4111975 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
- Type
- a
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.03
0.033280488 = product of:
0.04992073 = sum of:
0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0066366266 = score(doc=3925,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.043284103 = product of:
0.08656821 = sum of:
0.08656821 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08656821 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
- Type
- a
-
Contreras, E.J.; Moneda, M. De La; Osma, E. Ruiz de; Bailón-Moreno, R.; Ruiz-Baños, R.: ¬A bibliometric model for journal discarding policy at academic libraries (2006)
0.03
0.0320112 = product of:
0.048016798 = sum of:
0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00890397 = score(doc=4920,freq=10.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
0.03911283 = product of:
0.07822566 = sum of:
0.07822566 = weight(_text_:de in 4920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07822566 = score(doc=4920,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.4028896 = fieldWeight in 4920, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The authors propose a bibliometric model for discarding journal volumes at academic libraries, i.e., removal to offsite storage as part of the library's serials collection. The method is based an the volume as the unit of measurement and an user satisfaction with given titles. The discarding age, calculated for each volume, from the year of publication to the year of decision to discard, is dependent an citation half-life, relative productivity, knowledge area, and residual utility (potential consultations). The model makes it possible to predict the approximate size of a collection when a stationary state is reached in which the inflow of journal volumes is equal to the outflow from discarding. The model is also able to determine the rate of growth of the holdings. This information can be used to optimize future use of available space and economic and maintenance resources; thus promoting efficient management of the collection.
- Type
- a
-
Solla Price, D. de: Little science, big science (1963)
0.03
0.030729942 = product of:
0.092189826 = sum of:
0.092189826 = product of:
0.18437965 = sum of:
0.18437965 = weight(_text_:de in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18437965 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.94961995 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
-
Ridenour, L.: Practical applications of citation analysis to examine interdisciplinary knowledge (2016)
0.03
0.030714607 = product of:
0.04607191 = sum of:
0.009195981 = weight(_text_:a in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009195981 = score(doc=4938,freq=6.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
0.03687593 = product of:
0.07375186 = sum of:
0.07375186 = weight(_text_:de in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07375186 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.37984797 = fieldWeight in 4938, 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=4938)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
- Type
- a
-
Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005)
0.03
0.029794488 = product of:
0.04469173 = sum of:
0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007963953 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
0.03672778 = product of:
0.07345556 = sum of:
0.07345556 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07345556 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, 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=4890)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 20. 1.2007 17:02:22
- Type
- a
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.03
0.029794488 = product of:
0.04469173 = sum of:
0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007963953 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.03672778 = product of:
0.07345556 = sum of:
0.07345556 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07345556 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Type
- a
-
Schreiber, M.: Do we need the g-index? (2013)
0.03
0.029589612 = product of:
0.044384416 = sum of:
0.0075084865 = weight(_text_:a in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0075084865 = score(doc=1113,freq=4.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1113, 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=1113)
0.03687593 = product of:
0.07375186 = sum of:
0.07375186 = weight(_text_:de in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07375186 = score(doc=1113,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = 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.
- Type
- a
-
Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013)
0.03
0.028123489 = product of:
0.042185232 = sum of:
0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0053093014 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.03687593 = product of:
0.07375186 = sum of:
0.07375186 = weight(_text_:de in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07375186 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.37984797 = fieldWeight in 2188, 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=2188)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Content
- Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
- Type
- a
-
Lardy, J.P.; Herzhaft, L.: Bibliometric treatments according to bibliographic errors and data heterogenity : the end-user point of view (1992)
0.03
0.02687528 = product of:
0.04031292 = sum of:
0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008046483 = score(doc=5064,freq=6.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 5064, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5064)
0.032266438 = product of:
0.064532876 = sum of:
0.064532876 = weight(_text_:de in 5064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064532876 = score(doc=5064,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.33236697 = fieldWeight in 5064, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5064)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The quality of online and CD-ROM databases is far from satisfactory. Errors are frequently found in listings from online searches. Spelling mistakes are the most common but there are also more misleading errors such as variations of an author's name or absence of homogenity in the content of certain field. Describes breifly a bibliometric study of large amounts of data downloaded from databases to investigate bibliographic errors and data heterogeneity. Recommends that database producers should consider either the implementation of a common format or the recommendations of the Société Française de Bibliométrie
- Type
- a
-
Faba-Pérez, C.; Zapico-Alonso, F.; Guerrero-Bote, V.P.; Moya-Anegón, F. de: Comparative analysis of webometric measurements in thematic environments (2005)
0.03
0.02687528 = product of:
0.04031292 = sum of:
0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008046483 = score(doc=3554,freq=6.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
0.032266438 = product of:
0.064532876 = sum of:
0.064532876 = weight(_text_:de in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064532876 = score(doc=3554,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.33236697 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- There have been many attempts to evaluate Web spaces an the basis of the information that they provide, their form or functionality, or even the importance given to each of them by the Web itself. The indicators that have been developed for this purpose fall into two groups: those based an the study of a Web space's formal characteristics, and those related to its link structure. In this study we examine most of the webometric indicators that have been proposed in the literature together with others of our own design by applying them to a set of thematically related Web spaces and analyzing the relationships between the different indicators.
- Type
- a
-
Hicks, D.; Wouters, P.; Waltman, L.; Rijcke, S. de; Rafols, I.: ¬The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics : 10 principles to guide research evaluation (2015)
0.03
0.02687528 = product of:
0.04031292 = sum of:
0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008046483 = score(doc=1994,freq=6.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
0.032266438 = product of:
0.064532876 = sum of:
0.064532876 = weight(_text_:de in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.064532876 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.33236697 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Research evaluation has become routine and often relies on metrics. But it is increasingly driven by data and not by expert judgement. As a result, the procedures that were designed to increase the quality of research are now threatening to damage the scientific system. To support researchers and managers, five experts led by Diana Hicks, professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, and Paul Wouters, director of CWTS at Leiden University, have proposed ten principles for the measurement of research performance: the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics published as a comment in Nature.
- Type
- a
-
Lancho Barrantes, B.S.; Guerrero Bote, V.P.; Chinchilla Rodríguez, Z.; Moya Anegón, F. de: Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations (2012)
0.02
0.024940504 = product of:
0.037410755 = sum of:
0.009753809 = weight(_text_:a in 68) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009753809 = score(doc=68,freq=12.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 68, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=68)
0.027656946 = product of:
0.055313893 = sum of:
0.055313893 = weight(_text_:de in 68) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055313893 = score(doc=68,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.28488597 = fieldWeight in 68, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=68)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Domestic citation to papers from the same country and the greater citation impact of documents involving international collaboration are two phenomena that have been extensively studied and contrasted. Here, however, we show that it is not so much a national bias, but that papers have a greater impact on their immediate environments, an impact that is diluted as that environment grows. For this reason, the greatest biases are observed in countries with a limited production. Papers that involve international collaboration have a greater impact in general, on the one hand, because they have multiple "immediate environments," and on the other because of their greater quality or prestige. In short, one can say that science knows no frontiers. Certainly there is a greater impact on the authors' immediate environment, but this does not necessarily have to coincide with their national environments, which fade in importance as the collaborative environment expands.
- Type
- a
-
Weeber, M.; Klein, H.; Jong-van den Berg, L.T.W. de; Vos, R.: Using concepts in literature-based discovery : simulating Swanson's Raynaud-Fish Oil and Migraine-Manesium discoveries (2001)
0.02
0.024373945 = product of:
0.036560915 = sum of:
0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 5910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00890397 = score(doc=5910,freq=10.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5910, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5910)
0.027656946 = product of:
0.055313893 = sum of:
0.055313893 = weight(_text_:de in 5910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055313893 = score(doc=5910,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.28488597 = fieldWeight in 5910, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5910)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Literature-based discovery has resulted in new knowledge. In the biomedical context, Don R. Swanson has generated several literature-based hypotheses that have been corroborated experimentally and clinically. In this paper, we propose a two-step model of the discovery process in which hypotheses are generated and subsequently tested. We have implemented this model in a Natural Language Processing system that uses biomedical Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) concepts as its unit of analysis. We use the semantic information that is provided with these concepts as a powerful filter to successfully simulate Swanson's discoveries of connecting Raynaud's disease with fish oil and migraine with a magnesium deficiency
- Type
- a
-
Visscher, A. de: ¬An index to measure a scientist's specific impact (2010)
0.02
0.024373945 = product of:
0.036560915 = sum of:
0.00890397 = weight(_text_:a in 3332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00890397 = score(doc=3332,freq=10.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3332, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3332)
0.027656946 = product of:
0.055313893 = sum of:
0.055313893 = weight(_text_:de in 3332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055313893 = score(doc=3332,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.28488597 = fieldWeight in 3332, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3332)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The specific impact index, or s-index, is introduced as a measure of a scientist's projected impact per paper. The index is complementary to other indices that measure overall impact as it can distinguish between authors maximizing the quantity of their output and authors maximizing the quality of their output. It also can be used to monitor career progress. The main advantage of the new index is that it reduces age bias from older papers that have more time to accumulate citations than do more recent papers. The index was tested on 24 scientists in different fields and of different statures. The overall projected impact estimated from the index correlates well with Hirsch's h-index squared (r**2=0.99). The impact of different aging models was evaluated as well.
- Type
- a
-
Pichappan, P.; Sangaranachiyar, S.: Ageing approach to scientific eponyms (1996)
0.02
0.0242381 = product of:
0.03635715 = sum of:
0.01187196 = weight(_text_:a in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01187196 = score(doc=80,freq=10.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 80, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=80)
0.024485188 = product of:
0.048970375 = sum of:
0.048970375 = weight(_text_:22 in 80) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048970375 = score(doc=80,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 80, 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=80)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- There is a decrease in the incidence of explicit references to a paper over time, hence the assumption that information ages. In a study which attempts to discover whether information really ages it is necessary to include eponyms, anonyms and footnote references. Reports a pilot study which demonstrates that there is an increase over time in the frequency of use of eponyms
- Footnote
- Report presented at the 16th National Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres Seminar Special Interest Group Meeting on Informatrics in Bombay, 19-22 Dec 94
- Type
- a
-
Vieira, E.S.; Cabral, J.A.S.; Gomes, J.A.N.F.: Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions (2014)
0.02
0.024076894 = product of:
0.03611534 = sum of:
0.014690801 = weight(_text_:a in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014690801 = score(doc=1221,freq=20.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.28200063 = fieldWeight in 1221, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1221)
0.02142454 = product of:
0.04284908 = sum of:
0.04284908 = weight(_text_:22 in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04284908 = score(doc=1221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1221, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1221)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- A model based on a set of bibliometric indicators is proposed for the prediction of the ranking of applicants to an academic position as produced by a committee of peers. The results show that a very small number of indicators may lead to a robust prediction of about 75% of the cases. We start with 12 indicators to build a few composite indicators by factor analysis. Following a discrete choice model, we arrive at 3 comparatively good predicative models. We conclude that these models have a surprisingly good predictive power and may help peers in their selection process.
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 18:22:21
- Type
- a
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Moya-Anegón, F. de; Nooy, W. de: Aggregated journal-journal citation relations in scopus and web of science matched and compared in terms of networks, maps, and interactive overlays (2016)
0.02
0.02394156 = product of:
0.03591234 = sum of:
0.0033183133 = weight(_text_:a in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033183133 = score(doc=3090,freq=2.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
0.032594025 = product of:
0.06518805 = sum of:
0.06518805 = weight(_text_:de in 3090) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06518805 = score(doc=3090,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.33574134 = fieldWeight in 3090, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3090)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Type
- a
-
Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006)
0.02
0.023816183 = product of:
0.035724275 = sum of:
0.009753809 = weight(_text_:a in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009753809 = score(doc=5275,freq=12.0), product of:
0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
0.025970465 = product of:
0.05194093 = sum of:
0.05194093 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05194093 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045180224 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In this article we present an empirical approach to the study of the statistical properties of bibliometric indicators on a very relevant but not simply available aggregation level: the research group. We focus on the distribution functions of a coherent set of indicators that are used frequently in the analysis of research performance. In this sense, the coherent set of indicators acts as a measuring instrument. Better insight into the statistical properties of a measuring instrument is necessary to enable assessment of the instrument itself. The most basic distribution in bibliometric analysis is the distribution of citations over publications, and this distribution is very skewed. Nevertheless, we clearly observe the working of the central limit theorem and find that at the level of research groups the distribution functions of the main indicators, particularly the journal- normalized and the field-normalized indicators, approach normal distributions. The results of our study underline the importance of the idea of group oeuvre, that is, the role of sets of related publications as a unit of analysis.
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 16:20:22
- Type
- a
