Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Campanario, J.M."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011) 0.03 
    0.025941458 = product of:
  0.051882915 = sum of:
    0.051882915 = sum of:
      0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008202582 = score(doc=4187,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, 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=4187)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I studied the factors (citations, self-citations, and number of articles) that influenced large changes in only 1 year in the impact factors (IFs) of journals. A set of 360 instances of journals with large increases or decreases in their IFs from a given year to the following was selected from journals in the Journal Citation Reports from 1998 to 2007 (40 journals each year). The main factor influencing large changes was the change in the number of citations. About 54% of the increases and 42% of the decreases in the journal IFs were associated with changes in the journal self-citations.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:53:00
    Type
    a
  2. Campanario, J.M.: Distribution of ranks of articles and citations in journals (2010) 0.00 
    0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 3340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=3340,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3340, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    I studied the distribution of articles and citations in journals between 1998 and 2007 according to an empirical function with two exponents. These variables showed good fit to a beta function with two exponents.
    Type
    a
  3. Campanario, J.M.; Acedo, E.: Rejecting highly cited papers : the views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists (2007) 0.00 
    0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=273,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 273, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We studied the views of scientists who experience resistance to their new ideas by surveying a sample of 815 scientists who are authors of highly cited articles. The 132 responses (16.2%) received indicated that only 47 scientists (35.6%) had no problems with referees, editors, or other scientists. The most common causes of difficulty were rejection of the manuscript, and scepticism, ignorance, and incomprehension. The most common arguments given by referees against papers were that the findings were an insufficient advance to warrant publication, lacked practical impact, were based on a wrong hypothesis, or were based on a wrong concept. The strategies authors used to overcome resistance included obtaining help from someone to publish problematic papers, making changes in the text, and simple persistence. Despite difficulties, however, some respondents acknowledged the positive effect of peer review.
    Type
    a
  4. Campanario, J.M.: Using 'Citation Classics' to study the incidence of serendipity in scientific discovery (1996) 0.00 
    0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 6693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=6693,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 6693, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Suggests that the literature on the role of chance, error or accident in scientific progress tends to be anecdotal, hagiographic and rarely systematic. In contrast, presents a new approach to this topic, the study of serendipity in scietific discovery. Bases the approach on the study of highly cited papers obtained from the 'Citation Classics' feature of 'Current Contents'. Reports on the analysis of 205 'Citation Classics' commentaries from the 400 most cited papers in the recent history of science, and presents the results of the analysis
    Type
    a
  5. González, L.; Campanario, J.M.: Structure of the impact factor of journals included in the Social Sciences Citation Index : citations from documents labeled "Editorial Material" (2007) 0.00 
    0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=75,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 75, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=75)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    We investigated how citations from documents labeled by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) as "editorial material" contribute to the impact factor of academic journals in which they were published. Our analysis is based on records corresponding to the documents classified by the ISI as editorial material published in journals covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index between 1999 and 2003 (50,273 records corresponding to editorial material published in 2,374 journals). The results appear to rule out widespread manipulation of the impact factor by academic journals publishing large amounts of editorial material with many citations to the journal itself as a strategy to increase the impact factor.
    Type
    a
  6. Campanario, J.M.: Self-citations that contribute to the journal impact factor : an investment-benefit-yield analysis (2010) 0.00 
    0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 4124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=4124,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 4124, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The variables investment, benefit, and yield were defined to study the influence of journal self-citations on the impact factor. Investment represents the share of journal self-citations that contribute to the impact factor. Benefit is defined as the ratio of journal impact factor including self-citations to journal impact factor without self-citations. Yield is the relationship between benefit and investment. I selected all journals included in 2008 in the Science Citation Index version of Journal Citation Reports. After deleting 482 records for reasons to be explained, I used a final set of 6,138 journals to study the distribution of the variables defined above. The distribution of benefit differed from the distribution of investment and yield. The top 20-ranked journals were not the same for all three variables. The yield of self-citations on the journal impact factor was, in general, very modest.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years