-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.06
0.056258976 = product of:
0.11251795 = sum of:
0.11251795 = sum of:
0.063346416 = weight(_text_:l in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.063346416 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045365814 = queryNorm
0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.049171533 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049171533 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15886335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045365814 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Opthof, T.: Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time : principles for comparing sets of documents (2011)
0.02
0.016797256 = product of:
0.03359451 = sum of:
0.03359451 = product of:
0.06718902 = sum of:
0.06718902 = weight(_text_:l in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06718902 = score(doc=4485,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045365814 = queryNorm
0.37262368 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.D.: Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? (2009)
0.01
0.013997713 = product of:
0.027995426 = sum of:
0.027995426 = product of:
0.055990852 = sum of:
0.055990852 = weight(_text_:l in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055990852 = score(doc=2861,freq=4.0), product of:
0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045365814 = queryNorm
0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.; Moya Anegón, F. de; Mutz, R.: Do universities or research institutions with a specific subject profile have an advantage or a disadvantage in institutional rankings? (2013)
0.01
0.011877453 = product of:
0.023754906 = sum of:
0.023754906 = product of:
0.04750981 = sum of:
0.04750981 = weight(_text_:l in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04750981 = score(doc=1109,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045365814 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
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)
0.01
0.009897877 = product of:
0.019795755 = sum of:
0.019795755 = product of:
0.03959151 = sum of:
0.03959151 = weight(_text_:l in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03959151 = score(doc=1608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045365814 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multilevel-statistical reformulation of citation-based university rankings : the Leiden ranking 2011/2012 (2013)
0.01
0.009897877 = product of:
0.019795755 = sum of:
0.019795755 = product of:
0.03959151 = sum of:
0.03959151 = weight(_text_:l in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03959151 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045365814 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: Growth rates of modern science : a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015)
0.01
0.009897877 = product of:
0.019795755 = sum of:
0.019795755 = product of:
0.03959151 = sum of:
0.03959151 = weight(_text_:l in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03959151 = score(doc=2261,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045365814 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
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)
0.01
0.009897877 = product of:
0.019795755 = sum of:
0.019795755 = product of:
0.03959151 = sum of:
0.03959151 = weight(_text_:l in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03959151 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18031335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.045365814 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
