Search (125 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008) 0.04 
    0.043427996 = product of:
  0.08685599 = sum of:
    0.08685599 = sum of:
      0.04960655 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04960655 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.435748 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.037249442 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037249442 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."
    Date
    6. 4.2008 19:04:22
    Object
    H-Index
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.1, S.124-125
  2. Thelwall, M.; Ruschenburg, T.: Grundlagen und Forschungsfelder der Webometrie (2006) 0.04 
    0.03733264 = product of:
  0.07466528 = sum of:
    0.07466528 = sum of:
      0.02499935 = weight(_text_:h in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02499935 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
      0.049665924 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049665924 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    4.12.2006 12:12:22
    Source
    Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.8, S.401-406
  3. Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007) 0.04 
    0.03733264 = product of:
  0.07466528 = sum of:
    0.07466528 = sum of:
      0.02499935 = weight(_text_:h in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02499935 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
      0.049665924 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049665924 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    30.12.2007 11:22:39
  4. Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008) 0.03 
    0.034656744 = product of:
  0.06931349 = sum of:
    0.06931349 = sum of:
      0.038272284 = weight(_text_:h in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038272284 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.3361869 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.031041203 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031041203 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
    Object
    h-index
  5. Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006) 0.03 
    0.027999477 = product of:
  0.055998955 = sum of:
    0.055998955 = sum of:
      0.018749513 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018749513 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
      0.037249442 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037249442 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    3. 1.2007 17:22:03
  6. Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007) 0.02 
    0.024832962 = product of:
  0.049665924 = sum of:
    0.049665924 = product of:
      0.09933185 = sum of:
        0.09933185 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09933185 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    13. 7.2008 19:53:22
  7. Ball, R.: Wissenschaftsindikatoren im Zeitalter digitaler Wissenschaft (2007) 0.02 
    0.0233329 = product of:
  0.0466658 = sum of:
    0.0466658 = sum of:
      0.015624595 = weight(_text_:h in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015624595 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 875, 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=875)
      0.031041203 = weight(_text_:22 in 875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031041203 = score(doc=875,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 875, 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=875)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    23.12.2007 19:22:21
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 10(2007) H.2, S.xxx-xxx
  8. Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008) 0.02 
    0.0233329 = product of:
  0.0466658 = sum of:
    0.0466658 = sum of:
      0.015624595 = weight(_text_:h in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015624595 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.031041203 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031041203 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045821942 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 6.2008 12:54:12
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.2, S.14-20
  9. 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
  10. 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]
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  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. 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.
  16. 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
  17. Egghe, L.; Ravichandra Rao, I.K.: Study of different h-indices for groups of authors (2008) 0.01 
    0.013257908 = product of:
  0.026515815 = sum of:
    0.026515815 = product of:
      0.05303163 = sum of:
        0.05303163 = weight(_text_:h in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05303163 = score(doc=1878,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.
    Object
    h-index
  18. Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006) 0.01 
    0.013169668 = product of:
  0.026339335 = sum of:
    0.026339335 = product of:
      0.05267867 = sum of:
        0.05267867 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05267867 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:20:22
  19. Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009) 0.01 
    0.013169668 = product of:
  0.026339335 = sum of:
    0.026339335 = product of:
      0.05267867 = sum of:
        0.05267867 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05267867 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16046064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 3.2009 19:22:35
  20. Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006) 0.01 
    0.012499675 = product of:
  0.02499935 = sum of:
    0.02499935 = product of:
      0.0499987 = sum of:
        0.0499987 = weight(_text_:h in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0499987 = score(doc=196,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.4391927 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar's research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

Authors

Languages

  • e 93
  • d 32

Types

  • a 120
  • m 4
  • el 3
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications