Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Katz, J.S."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Katz, J.S.; Hicks, D.: How much is a collaboration worth? : a calibrated bibliometric model (1997) 0.00 
    0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1022) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=1022,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1022, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1022)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    There are numerous international and national programmes to encourage collaboration. However, little is known about the way in which collaboration changes the impact of a research publication. Explores hoe the impact (average citations per paper) varies with different types of collaboration. A calibrated bibliometric model is derived that demonstrates that collaborating with an author from the home institution or another domestic institution increases the average impact by about 0,75 citations while collaborating with an author from a foreign institution increases the impact by about 1.6 citations
    Type
    a
  2. Ronda-Pupo, G.A.; Katz, J.S.: ¬The scaling relationship between citation-based performance and coauthorship patterns in natural sciences (2017) 0.00 
    0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 3603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=3603,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3603, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to extend our knowledge about the power-law relationship between citation-based performance and coauthorship patterns in papers in the natural sciences. We analyzed 829,924 articles that received 16,490,346 citations. The number of articles published through coauthorship accounts for 89%. The citation-based performance and coauthorship patterns exhibit a power-law correlation with a scaling exponent of 1.20?±?0.07. Citations to a subfield's research articles tended to increase 2.1.20 or 2.30 times each time it doubled the number of coauthored papers. The scaling exponent for the power-law relationship for single-authored papers was 0.85?±?0.11. The citations to a subfield's single-authored research articles increased 2.0.85 or 1.89 times each time the research area doubled the number of single-authored papers. The Matthew Effect is stronger for coauthored papers than for single-authored. In fact, with a scaling exponent <1.0 the impact of single-authored papers exhibits a cumulative disadvantage or inverse Matthew Effect.
    Type
    a
  3. Katz, J.S.: Bibliometric standards : personal experience and lessons learned (1996) 0.00 
    0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 5058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=5058,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 5058, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5058)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bibliometric standards are essential for comparative research. Asserts, however, that these standards can not be set by committee but must evolve through an ongoing debate. Suggests that the scientometric community needs a refereed forum more dedicated to methodological issues than policy matters in which the standards debate can prodeed in a focused and professional manner
    Type
    a
  4. Ronda-Pupo, G.A.; Katz, J.S.: ¬The power-law relationship between citation-based performance and collaboration in articles in management journals : a scale-independent approach scale-independent approach (2016) 0.00 
    0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 3127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=3127,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3127, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The objective of this article is to determine if academic collaboration is associated with the citation-based performance of articles that are published in management journals. We analyzed 127,812 articles published between 1988 and 2013 in 173 journals on the ISI Web of Science in the "management" category. Collaboration occurred in approximately 60% of all articles. A power-law relationship was found between citation-based performance and journal size and collaboration patterns. The number of citations expected by collaborative articles increases 21.89 or 3.7 times when the number of collaborative articles published in a journal doubles. The number of citations expected by noncollaborative articles only increases 21.35 or 2.55 times if a journal publishes double the number of noncollaborative articles. The Matthew effect is stronger for collaborative than for noncollaborative articles. Scale-independent indicators increase the confidence in the evaluation of the impact of the articles published in management journals.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years