-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.04
0.037617117 = product of:
0.075234234 = sum of:
0.075234234 = sum of:
0.04419303 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04419303 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
0.031041203 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031041203 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 19:22:13
- Object
- h-index
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.03
0.032666057 = product of:
0.065332115 = sum of:
0.065332115 = sum of:
0.021874432 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021874432 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
0.043457683 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043457683 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 14:04:09
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.1, S.1-8
-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.03
0.03188263 = product of:
0.06376526 = sum of:
0.06376526 = sum of:
0.026515815 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026515815 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.037249442 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037249442 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:35:26
- Footnote
- Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.157-182
-
Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012)
0.03
0.027999477 = product of:
0.055998955 = sum of:
0.055998955 = sum of:
0.018749513 = weight(_text_:h in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018749513 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
0.037249442 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037249442 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:23:32
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.2, S.71-80
-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.03
0.027999477 = product of:
0.055998955 = sum of:
0.055998955 = sum of:
0.018749513 = weight(_text_:h in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018749513 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.037249442 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037249442 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:12:35
-
Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014)
0.03
0.027999477 = product of:
0.055998955 = sum of:
0.055998955 = sum of:
0.018749513 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018749513 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.037249442 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037249442 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:11:29
-
Ntuli, H.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Chang, T.; Pouris, A.: Does research output cause economic growth or vice versa? : evidence from 34 OECD countries (2015)
0.03
0.027999477 = product of:
0.055998955 = sum of:
0.055998955 = sum of:
0.018749513 = weight(_text_:h in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018749513 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
0.037249442 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037249442 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 8. 7.2015 22:00:42
-
Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.: ¬A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science : using three bibliometric methods (2012)
0.02
0.0233329 = product of:
0.0466658 = sum of:
0.0466658 = sum of:
0.015624595 = weight(_text_:h in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015624595 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
0.031041203 = weight(_text_:22 in 4959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031041203 = score(doc=4959,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4959, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4959)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.22-33
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Liu, J.S.: ¬A new approach for main path analysis : decay in knowledge diffusion (2016)
0.02
0.0233329 = product of:
0.0466658 = sum of:
0.0466658 = sum of:
0.015624595 = weight(_text_:h in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015624595 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.031041203 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031041203 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:23:00
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.02
0.018624721 = product of:
0.037249442 = sum of:
0.037249442 = product of:
0.074498884 = sum of:
0.074498884 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074498884 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Calculating the h-index : Web of Science, Scopus or Google Scholar? (2011)
0.02
0.015624595 = product of:
0.03124919 = sum of:
0.03124919 = product of:
0.06249838 = sum of:
0.06249838 = weight(_text_:h in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06249838 = score(doc=854,freq=8.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.5489909 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Gegenüberstellung der Berechnung des h-Index in den drei Tools mit Beispiel Stephen Hawking (WoS: 59, Scopus: 19, Google Scholar: 76)
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- https://dspace.ndlr.ie/jspui/bitstream/10633/27353/9/H%20index%20datasheet.pdf
-
Hovden, R.: Bibliometrics for Internet media : applying the h-index to YouTube (2013)
0.02
0.015467559 = product of:
0.030935118 = sum of:
0.030935118 = product of:
0.061870236 = sum of:
0.061870236 = weight(_text_:h in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061870236 = score(doc=1111,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.
- Object
- h-index
-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The inconsistency of the h-index : the case of web accessibility in Western European countries (2012)
0.01
0.014822791 = product of:
0.029645583 = sum of:
0.029645583 = product of:
0.059291165 = sum of:
0.059291165 = weight(_text_:h in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059291165 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.5208185 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis), the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.
- Object
- h-index
-
Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010)
0.01
0.014062135 = product of:
0.02812427 = sum of:
0.02812427 = product of:
0.05624854 = sum of:
0.05624854 = weight(_text_:h in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05624854 = score(doc=3418,freq=18.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.49409178 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬The Hirsch index of a shifted Lotka function and its relation with the impact factor (2012)
0.01
0.013395299 = product of:
0.026790598 = sum of:
0.026790598 = product of:
0.053581197 = sum of:
0.053581197 = weight(_text_:h in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053581197 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.
- Object
- h-index
-
Zhao, S.X.; Tan, A.M.; Ye, F.Y.: Distributive h-indices for measuring multilevel impact (2012)
0.01
0.013395299 = product of:
0.026790598 = sum of:
0.026790598 = product of:
0.053581197 = sum of:
0.053581197 = weight(_text_:h in 460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053581197 = score(doc=460,freq=12.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 460, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=460)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- For measuring multilevel impact, we introduce the distributive h-indices, which balance two important components (breadth and strength) of multilevel impact at various citing levels. After exploring the theoretical properties of these indices, we studied two cases: 57 library and information science (LIS) journals and social science research in 38 European countries/territories. Results reveal that there are approximate power-law relations between distributive h-indices and some underlying citation indicators, such as total citations, total citing entities, and the h-index. Distributive h-indices provide comprehensive measures for multilevel impact, and lead to a potential tool for citation analysis, particularly at aggregative levels.
- Object
- h-index
-
Engqvist, L.; Frommen, J.G.: New insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations? (2010)
0.01
0.013257908 = product of:
0.026515815 = sum of:
0.026515815 = product of:
0.05303163 = sum of:
0.05303163 = weight(_text_:h in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05303163 = score(doc=3594,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The thermodynamics-bibliometrics consilience and the meaning of h-type indices (2012)
0.01
0.013257908 = product of:
0.026515815 = sum of:
0.026515815 = product of:
0.05303163 = sum of:
0.05303163 = weight(_text_:h in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05303163 = score(doc=4990,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The inconsistency of the H-index (2012)
0.01
0.013257908 = product of:
0.026515815 = sum of:
0.026515815 = product of:
0.05303163 = sum of:
0.05303163 = weight(_text_:h in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05303163 = score(doc=287,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
-
Bartolucci, F.: On a possible decomposition of the h-index. (2012)
0.01
0.013257908 = product of:
0.026515815 = sum of:
0.026515815 = product of:
0.05303163 = sum of:
0.05303163 = weight(_text_:h in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05303163 = score(doc=454,freq=4.0), product of:
0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045821942 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 454, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=454)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Object
- h-index
