-
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)
0.07
0.06922512 = product of:
0.13845024 = sum of:
0.13845024 = sum of:
0.08405443 = weight(_text_:z in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08405443 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.018212747 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018212747 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = 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)
0.03618306 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03618306 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15586694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = 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
-
Ye, F.Y.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The "academic trace" of the performance matrix : a mathematical synthesis of the h-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3) (2014)
0.05
0.048196994 = product of:
0.09639399 = sum of:
0.09639399 = product of:
0.14459097 = sum of:
0.0990591 = weight(_text_:z in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0990591 = score(doc=1237,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.41697758 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
0.04553187 = weight(_text_:h in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04553187 = score(doc=1237,freq=18.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.41174316 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The h-index provides us with 9 natural classes which can be written as a matrix of 3 vectors. The 3 vectors are: X = (X1, X2, X3) and indicates publication distribution in the h-core, the h-tail, and the uncited ones, respectively; Y = (Y1, Y2, Y3) denotes the citation distribution of the h-core, the h-tail and the so-called "excess" citations (above the h-threshold), respectively; and Z = (Z1, Z2, Z3) = (Y1-X1, Y2-X2, Y3-X3). The matrix V = (X,Y,Z)T constructs a measure of academic performance, in which the 9 numbers can all be provided with meanings in different dimensions. The "academic trace" tr(V) of this matrix follows naturally, and contributes a unique indicator for total academic achievements by summarizing and weighting the accumulation of publications and citations. This measure can also be used to combine the advantages of the h-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3) into a single number with a meaningful interpretation of the values. We illustrate the use of tr(V) for the cases of 2 journal sets, 2 universities, and ourselves as 2 individual authors.
- Object
- h-index
-
Haiqi, Z.: ¬The literature of Qigong : publication patterns and subject headings (1997)
0.05
0.046759024 = product of:
0.09351805 = sum of:
0.09351805 = product of:
0.14027707 = sum of:
0.098063506 = weight(_text_:z in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.098063506 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.41278675 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
0.04221357 = weight(_text_:22 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04221357 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15586694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 862, 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=862)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.38-44
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Universality of citation distributions : a validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry (2009)
0.05
0.04549981 = product of:
0.09099962 = sum of:
0.09099962 = product of:
0.13649942 = sum of:
0.121322125 = weight(_text_:z in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.121322125 = score(doc=2954,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.51069117 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.01517729 = weight(_text_:h in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01517729 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2954, 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=2954)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In a recently published PNAS paper, Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008) propose the relative indicator cf as an unbiased indicator for citation performance across disciplines (fields, subject areas). To calculate cf, the citation rate for a single paper is divided by the average number of citations for all papers in the discipline in which the single paper has been categorized. cf values are said to lead to a universality of discipline-specific citation distributions. Using a comprehensive dataset of an evaluation study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), we tested the advantage of using this indicator in practical application at the micro level, as compared with (1) simple citation rates, and (2) z-scores, which have been used in psychological testing for many years for normalization of test scores. To calculate z-scores, the mean number of citations of the papers within a discipline is subtracted from the citation rate of a single paper, and the difference is then divided by the citations' standard deviation for a discipline. Our results indicate that z-scores are better suited than cf values to produce universality of discipline-specific citation distributions.
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Huang, M.-H.; Chen, D.-Z.: ¬A two-dimensional approach to performance evaluation for a large number of research institutions (2012)
0.04
0.040159978 = product of:
0.080319956 = sum of:
0.080319956 = product of:
0.12047993 = sum of:
0.08405443 = weight(_text_:z in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08405443 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
0.036425494 = weight(_text_:h in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036425494 = score(doc=58,freq=8.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We characterize the research performance of a large number of institutions in a two-dimensional coordinate system based on the shapes of their h-cores so that their relative performance can be conveniently observed and compared. The 2D distribution of these institutions is then utilized (1) to categorize the institutions into a number of qualitative groups revealing the nature of their performance, and (2) to determine the position of a specific institution among the set of institutions. The method is compared with some major h-type indices and tested with empirical data using clinical medicine as an illustrative case. The method is extensible to the research performance evaluation at other aggregation levels such as researchers, journals, departments, and nations.
-
He, Z.-L.: International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority (2009)
0.04
0.040079165 = product of:
0.08015833 = sum of:
0.08015833 = product of:
0.12023749 = sum of:
0.08405443 = weight(_text_:z in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08405443 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 3122, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3122)
0.03618306 = weight(_text_:22 in 3122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03618306 = score(doc=3122,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15586694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3122, 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=3122)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 26. 9.2009 11:22:05
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.04
0.0375625 = product of:
0.075125 = sum of:
0.075125 = product of:
0.1126875 = sum of:
0.07004536 = weight(_text_:z in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07004536 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.042642143 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042642143 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15586694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
-
Umstätter, W.; Rehm, M.; Dorogi, Z.: ¬Die Halbwertszeit in der naturwissenschaftlichen Literatur (1982)
0.03
0.03408906 = product of:
0.06817812 = sum of:
0.06817812 = product of:
0.102267176 = sum of:
0.08405443 = weight(_text_:z in 5279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08405443 = score(doc=5279,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 5279, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5279)
0.018212747 = weight(_text_:h in 5279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018212747 = score(doc=5279,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 5279, 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=5279)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 33(1982) H.2, S.50-52
-
Huang, M.-H.; Tang, M.-C.; Chen, D.-Z.: Inequality of publishing performance and international collaboration in physics (2011)
0.03
0.03408906 = product of:
0.06817812 = sum of:
0.06817812 = product of:
0.102267176 = sum of:
0.08405443 = weight(_text_:z in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08405443 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
0.018212747 = weight(_text_:h in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018212747 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 4467, 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=4467)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013)
0.03
0.03408906 = product of:
0.06817812 = sum of:
0.06817812 = product of:
0.102267176 = sum of:
0.08405443 = weight(_text_:z in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08405443 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.018212747 = weight(_text_:h in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018212747 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 928, 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=928)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Grundsätzlich können wir bei Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft zwischen einer 'qualitative' Form, der Bewertung einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit (z. B. eines Manuskripts oder Forschungsantrags) durch kompetente Peers, und einer 'quantitative' Form, der Bewertung von wissenschaftlicher Arbeit anhand bibliometrischer Indikatoren unterscheiden. Beide Formen der Bewertung sind nicht unumstritten. Die Kritiker des Peer Review sehen vor allem zwei Schwächen des Verfahrens: (1) Verschiedene Gutachter würden kaum in der Bewertung ein und derselben wissenschaftlichen Arbeit übereinstimmen. (2) Gutachterliche Empfehlungen würden systematische Urteilsverzerrungen aufweisen. Gegen die Verwendung von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für die Qualität einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit wird seit Jahren eine Vielzahl von Bedenken geäußert. Zitierhäufigkeiten seien keine 'objektiven' Messungen von wissenschaftlicher Qualität, sondern ein kritisierbares Messkonstrukt. So wird unter anderem kritisiert, dass wissenschaftliche Qualität ein komplexes Phänomen darstelle, das nicht auf einer eindimensionalen Skala (d. h. anhand von Zitierhäufigkeiten) gemessen werden könne. Es werden empirische Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Fairness des Peer Review Verfahrens sowie Forschungsergebnisse zur Güte von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für wissenschaftliche Qualität vorgestellt.
-
Tüür-Fröhlich, T.: ¬Eine "autoritative" Datenbank auf dem Prüfstand : der Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) und seine Datenqualität (2018)
0.03
0.03408906 = product of:
0.06817812 = sum of:
0.06817812 = product of:
0.102267176 = sum of:
0.08405443 = weight(_text_:z in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08405443 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
0.018212747 = weight(_text_:h in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018212747 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 4591, 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=4591)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Zitatdatenbanken bilden die Datengrundlagen für zahlreiche szientometrische Untersuchungen, Evaluationen wissenschaftlicher Leistungen und Uni-Rankings. In der Literatur finden sich kaum Hinweise auf endogene Fehler (Original richtig, Datenbankeintrag falsch) in den kostenpflichtigen Datenbanken. Banale Fehler (z. B. Falschschreibung der Namen von Autorinnen oder Autoren) in Datenbanken hätten nur geringe Relevanz. Die Fehlersuche zu Pierre Bourdieu als "cited author" im SSCI (Vergleich Original - SSCI-Record) ergab mehr als 85 Mutationen. Die Fallstudien zeigen eine hohe Anzahl endogener Datenbankfehler. In den Rechtswissenschaften übliche Referenzen in Fußnoten laufen große Gefahr, in Phantomreferenzen verwandelt zu werden (Fallstudie Harvard Law Review: 99 Prozent Fehler). Dem Anspruch des SSCI, die "relevanten" globalen Sozialwissenschaften abzubilden - für alle im SSCI erfassten Disziplinen -, stehen offenbar Mängel in Datenerfassung und -verarbeitung im Wege.
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 69(2018) H.5/6, S.265-275
-
Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015)
0.03
0.033399306 = product of:
0.06679861 = sum of:
0.06679861 = product of:
0.10019791 = sum of:
0.07004536 = weight(_text_:z in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07004536 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
0.03015255 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03015255 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15586694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023)
0.03
0.033399306 = product of:
0.06679861 = sum of:
0.06679861 = product of:
0.10019791 = sum of:
0.07004536 = weight(_text_:z in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07004536 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
0.03015255 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03015255 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15586694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, 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=882)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2023 18:37:33
-
Liu, Z.; Wang, C.: Mapping interdisciplinarity in demography : a journal network analysis (2005)
0.03
0.032687835 = product of:
0.06537567 = sum of:
0.06537567 = product of:
0.19612701 = sum of:
0.19612701 = weight(_text_:z in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.19612701 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.8255735 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Tüür-Fröhlich, T.: Blackbox SSCI : Datenerfassung und Datenverarbeitung bei der kommerziellen Indexierung von Zitaten (2019)
0.03
0.032111067 = product of:
0.064222135 = sum of:
0.064222135 = product of:
0.0963332 = sum of:
0.07004536 = weight(_text_:z in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07004536 = score(doc=5779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
0.026287837 = weight(_text_:h in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026287837 = score(doc=5779,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.23772003 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Zahlreiche Autoren, Autorinnen und kritische Initiativen (z. B. DORA) kritisieren den zu hohen und schädlichen Einfluss quantitativer Daten, welche akademische Instanzen für Evaluationszwecke heranziehen. Wegen des großen Einflusses der globalen Zitatdatenbanken von Thomson Reuters (bzw. Clarivate Analytics) auf die Bewertung der wissenschaftlichen Leistungen von Forscherinnen und Forschern habe ich extensive qualitative und quantitative Fallstudien zur Datenqualität des Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) durchgeführt, d. h. die Originaleinträge mit den SSCI-Datensätzen verglichen. Diese Fallstudien zeigten schwerste - nie in der Literatur erwähnte - Fehler, Verstümmelungen, Phantomautoren, Phantomwerke (Fehlerrate in der Fallstudie zu Beebe 2010, Harvard Law Review: 99 Prozent). Über die verwendeten Datenerfassungs- und Indexierungsverfahren von TR bzw. Clarivate Analytics ist nur wenig bekannt. Ein Ergebnis meiner Untersuchungen: Bei der Indexierung von Verweisen in Fußnoten (wie in den Rechtswissenschaften, gerade auch der USA, vorgeschrieben) scheinen die verwendeten Textanalyse-Anwendungen und -Algorithmen völlig überfordert. Eine Qualitätskontrolle scheint nicht stattzufinden. Damit steht der Anspruch des SSCI als einer multidisziplinären Datenbank zur Debatte. Korrekte Zitate in den Fußnoten des Originals können zu Phantom-Autoren, Phantom-Werken und Phantom-Referenzen degenerieren. Das bedeutet: Sämtliche Zeitschriften und Disziplinen, deren Zeitschriften und Büchern dieses oder ähnliche Zitierverfahren verwenden (Oxford-Style), laufen Gefahr, aufgrund starker Zitatverluste falsch, d. h. unterbewertet, zu werden. Wie viele UBOs (Unidentifiable Bibliographic Objects) sich in den Datenbanken SCI, SSCI und AHCI befinden, wäre nur mit sehr aufwändigen Prozeduren zu klären. Unabhängig davon handelt es sich, wie bei fast allen in meinen Untersuchungen gefundenen fatalen Fehlern, eindeutig um endogene Fehler in den Datenbanken, die nicht, wie oft behauptet, angeblich falsch zitierenden Autorinnen und Autoren zugeschrieben werden können, sondern erst im Laufe der Dateneingabe und -verarbeitung entstehen.
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.5/6, S.241-248
-
Glänzel, W.; Debackere, K.: Messen von Wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation und Forschungsleistung : Möglichkeiten und Beschränkungen bibliometrischer Methoden (2005)
0.03
0.030463038 = product of:
0.060926076 = sum of:
0.060926076 = product of:
0.09138911 = sum of:
0.07924728 = weight(_text_:z in 3770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07924728 = score(doc=3770,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.33358207 = fieldWeight in 3770, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3770)
0.012141831 = weight(_text_:h in 3770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012141831 = score(doc=3770,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 3770, 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=3770)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In den letzten drei Jahrzehnten hat sich die Bibliometrie (auch Szientometrie genannt) zu einem komplexen Forschungs- und Dienstleistungsgebiet entwickelt. Ergebnisse bibliometrischer Studien haben längst Eingang gefunden in Wissenschaftspolitik und Forschungsmanagement. Allerdings haben sich betreffend der Aufgabe und Funktion der Bibliometrie auch hartnäckig Vorurteile und Mißverständnisse gehalten. Zu diesen gehören Meinungen wie z. B., daß methodische Forschung auf diesem Gebiet unnötig sei und daß Bibliometriker ihre Aktivitäten besser auf den praxisorientierte Einsatz und auf die Erarbeitung leicht verständlicher Guidelines für den Umgang mit ihren Indikatoren konzentrieren sollten. Trotz derverbreiteten Auffassung, daß Bibliometrie lediglich ein Hilfsmittel im Dienste der Wissenschaftspolitik sei, haben Bibliometriker durch ihre Forschung gezeigt, daß sich ihre Disziplin zu einem vielseitigem interdisziplinären Fachgebiet mit eigenen Teilbereichen entwickelt hat: Die strukturelle Szientometrie beschäftigt sich mit der epistemologischen Struktur der Wissenschaft, die dynamische Szientometrie brachte z. B. Modelle des Wachstums der Wissenschaft, der Alterung von Information und der Zitationsprozesse hervor; die evaluative Szientometrie entwickelte schließlich Indikatoren zum Messen und zur Evaluation von Forschungsleistung. Obwohl sich im letztgenannten Bereich ein Anwendungsschwerpunkt herauskristallisiert hat, sollte hierbei noch ein letztes Mißverständins ausgeräumt werden: Bibliometrie kann zwar zur Entwicklung von Methoden für die Forschungsevaluation genutzt werden; es kann aber nicht Aufgabe der Bibliometrie sein, Forschungsergebnisse zu beurteilen. Darüber hinaus hat Bibliometrie auch nicht zum Ziel, qualitative Methoden durch quantitative Verfahren, also im besonderen peer reviews oder Gutachten von Experten durch indikatorbasierte Evaluationen zu ersetzen; qualitative Methoden und Bibliometrie sollten einander stets ergänzen. Im folgenden wollen wir zunächst kurz die Struktur der gegenwärtigen bibliometrischen Forschung abreißen und dann die Möglichkeiten und Beschränkungen bibliometrischer Methoden diskutieren.
- Source
- Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 58(2005) H.2, S.9-20
-
Kretschmer, H.: Similarities and dissimilarities in coauthorship networks : Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature (2002)
0.03
0.02840755 = product of:
0.0568151 = sum of:
0.0568151 = product of:
0.08522265 = sum of:
0.07004536 = weight(_text_:z in 819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07004536 = score(doc=819,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 819, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=819)
0.01517729 = weight(_text_:h in 819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01517729 = score(doc=819,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 819, 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=819)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Based on Gestalt theory, the author assumes the existence of a field-force equilibrium to explain how, according to the conciseness principle, mathematically precise gestalts could exist in coauthorship networks. A simple mathematical function is developed for the description of these gestalts which can encompass complementary tendencies (as in the principle of Yin and Yang) in their dynamic interplay and, thus, can reflect the change in gestalts. For example, "Birds of a feather flock together" and "Opposites attract" are explained as complementary tendencies. The data are obtained by SCI. In analyzing the coauthorship networks, coauthorship relations Z between scientists (third dimension) are recorded from the point of view of every scientist with productivity X (first dimension) to all the other scientists with productivity Y (second dimension). According to the conciseness principle, three-dimensional well-ordered gestalts from different science disciplines are presented. The results of the study have confirmed Metzger's conjectures that the conciseness principle also has validity for social systems, and is valid even with the same conciseness as in the psychology of perception. It is possible that the presented mathematical function has assumed a more general character and, in consequence, is also more likely applicable to the description of citation networks or the spreading of information.
-
Huang, M.-H.; Lin, C.-S.; Chen, D.-Z.: Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact (2011)
0.03
0.02840755 = product of:
0.0568151 = sum of:
0.0568151 = product of:
0.08522265 = sum of:
0.07004536 = weight(_text_:z in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07004536 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 4942, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4942)
0.01517729 = weight(_text_:h in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01517729 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Amolochitis, E.; Christou, I.T.; Tan, Z.-H.; Prasad, R.: ¬A heuristic hierarchical scheme for academic search and retrieval (2013)
0.03
0.02840755 = product of:
0.0568151 = sum of:
0.0568151 = product of:
0.08522265 = sum of:
0.07004536 = weight(_text_:z in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07004536 = score(doc=2711,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23756456 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 2711, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2711)
0.01517729 = weight(_text_:h in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01517729 = score(doc=2711,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2711, 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=2711)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008)
0.03
0.028123153 = product of:
0.056246307 = sum of:
0.056246307 = product of:
0.08436946 = sum of:
0.0481864 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0481864 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
0.11058318 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = 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)
0.03618306 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03618306 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15586694 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04451014 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
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
