Search (359 results, page 2 of 18)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998) 0.02 
    0.021949446 = product of:
  0.04389889 = sum of:
    0.04389889 = product of:
      0.08779778 = sum of:
        0.08779778 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08779778 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, 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=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:22:35
  2. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.021949446 = product of:
  0.04389889 = sum of:
    0.04389889 = product of:
      0.08779778 = sum of:
        0.08779778 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08779778 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  3. Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994) 0.02 
    0.021728842 = product of:
  0.043457683 = sum of:
    0.043457683 = product of:
      0.08691537 = sum of:
        0.08691537 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08691537 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
  4. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.02 
    0.021728842 = product of:
  0.043457683 = sum of:
    0.043457683 = product of:
      0.08691537 = sum of:
        0.08691537 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08691537 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  5. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.02 
    0.021728842 = product of:
  0.043457683 = sum of:
    0.043457683 = product of:
      0.08691537 = sum of:
        0.08691537 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08691537 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
  6. Wettlauf der Wissenschaft (2004) 0.02 
    0.01866632 = product of:
  0.03733264 = sum of:
    0.03733264 = sum of:
      0.012499675 = weight(_text_:h in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012499675 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.024832962 = weight(_text_:22 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024832962 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Online Mitteilungen. 2004, Nr.79, S.22-23 [=Mitteilungen VÖB 57(2004) H.2]
  7. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.02 
    0.018624721 = product of:
  0.037249442 = sum of:
    0.037249442 = product of:
      0.074498884 = sum of:
        0.074498884 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.074498884 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007) 0.02 
    0.015467559 = product of:
  0.030935118 = sum of:
    0.030935118 = product of:
      0.061870236 = sum of:
        0.061870236 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061870236 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 477, 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=477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Jorge Hirsch recently proposed the h index to quantify the research output of individual scientists. The new index has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific community. The claim that the h index in a single number provides a good representation of the scientific lifetime achievement of a scientist as well as the (supposed) simple calculation of the h index using common literature databases lead to the danger of improper use of the index. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the h index and summarize the studies on the convergent validity of this index. We also introduce corrections and complements as well as single-number alternatives to the h index.
    Object
    H-Index
  11. 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
  12. Gianoli, E.; Molina-Montenegro, M.A.: Insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations (2009) 0.02 
    0.015308914 = product of:
  0.030617828 = sum of:
    0.030617828 = product of:
      0.061235655 = sum of:
        0.061235655 = weight(_text_:h in 2859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061235655 = score(doc=2859,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.537899 = fieldWeight in 2859, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We analyze the publication output of 119 Chilean ecologists and find strong evidence that self-citations significantly affect the h-index increase. Furthermore, we show that the relationship between the increase in the h-index and the proportion of self-citations differs between high and low h-index researchers. In particular, our results show that it is in the low h-index group where self-citations cause the greater impact.
    Object
    h-Index
  13. 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
  14. Schreiber, M.: ¬An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index (2008) 0.01 
    0.014083819 = product of:
  0.028167639 = sum of:
    0.028167639 = product of:
      0.056335278 = sum of:
        0.056335278 = weight(_text_:h in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056335278 = score(doc=1968,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.4948537 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. To take into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations, L. Egghe (2006a) proposed the g-index as an improvement of the h-index. I have worked out 26 practical cases of physicists from the Institute of Physics at Chemnitz University of Technology, and compare the h and g values in this study. It is demonstrated that the g-index discriminates better between different citation patterns. This also can be achieved by evaluating B.H. Jin's (2006) A-index, which reflects the average number of citations in the h-core, and interpreting it in conjunction with the h-index. h and A can be combined into the R-index to measure the h-core's citation intensity. I also have determined the A and R values for the 26 datasets. For a better comparison, I utilize interpolated indices. The correlations between the various indices as well as with the total number of papers and the highest citation counts are discussed. The largest Pearson correlation coefficient is found between g and R. Although the correlation between g and h is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either h or g.
    Object
    h-Index
  15. 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
  16. Egghe, L.: Dynamic h-index : the Hirsch index in function of time (2007) 0.01 
    0.013975062 = product of:
  0.027950125 = sum of:
    0.027950125 = product of:
      0.05590025 = sum of:
        0.05590025 = weight(_text_:h in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05590025 = score(doc=147,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    When there are a group of articles and the present time is fixed we can determine the unique number h being the number of articles that received h or more citations while the other articles received a number of citations which is not larger than h. In this article, the time dependence of the h-index is determined. This is important to describe the expected career evolution of a scientist's work or of a journal's production in a fixed year.
  17. Rousseau, R.; Ye, F.Y.: ¬A proposal for a dynamic h-type index (2008) 0.01 
    0.013975062 = product of:
  0.027950125 = sum of:
    0.027950125 = product of:
      0.05590025 = sum of:
        0.05590025 = weight(_text_:h in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05590025 = score(doc=2351,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A time-dependent h-type indicator is proposed. This indicator depends on the size of the h-core, the number of citations received, and recent change in the value of the h-index. As such, it tries to combine in a dynamic way older information about the source (e.g., a scientist or research institute that is evaluated) with recent information.
    Object
    h-index
  18. Krattenthaler, C.: Was der h-Index wirklich aussagt (2021) 0.01 
    0.013975062 = product of:
  0.027950125 = sum of:
    0.027950125 = product of:
      0.05590025 = sum of:
        0.05590025 = weight(_text_:h in 407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05590025 = score(doc=407,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 407, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Diese Note legt dar, dass der sogenannte h-Index (Hirschs bibliometrischer Index) im Wesentlichen dieselbe Information wiedergibt wie die Gesamtanzahl von Zitationen von Publikationen einer Autorin oder eines Autors, also ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index ist. Dies basiert auf einem faszinierenden Satz der Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, der hier ebenfalls erläutert wird.
    Content
    Vgl.: DOI: 10.1515/dmvm-2021-0050. Auch abgedruckt u.d.T.: 'Der h-Index - "ein nutzloser bibliometrischer Index"' in Open Password Nr. 1007 vom 06.12.2021 unter: https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzM3NCwiZDI3MzMzOTEwMzUzIiwwLDAsMzQ4LDFd.
    Object
    h-index
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2021, H.3, S.124-128
  19. 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
  20. 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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 270
  • d 84
  • chi 1
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 345
  • el 9
  • m 8
  • s 5
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications