-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.02
0.022825247 = product of:
0.045650493 = sum of:
0.045650493 = sum of:
0.010381345 = weight(_text_:d in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010381345 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08242767 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.04338591 = queryNorm
0.1259449 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.03526915 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03526915 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15193006 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04338591 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.02
0.017634574 = product of:
0.03526915 = sum of:
0.03526915 = product of:
0.0705383 = sum of:
0.0705383 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0705383 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15193006 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04338591 = 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.011756384 = product of:
0.023512768 = sum of:
0.023512768 = product of:
0.047025535 = sum of:
0.047025535 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047025535 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15193006 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04338591 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Bornmann, L.: How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics : the statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers (2013)
0.01
0.008817287 = product of:
0.017634574 = sum of:
0.017634574 = product of:
0.03526915 = sum of:
0.03526915 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03526915 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15193006 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04338591 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 656, 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=656)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:44:17
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011)
0.01
0.00734774 = product of:
0.01469548 = sum of:
0.01469548 = product of:
0.02939096 = sum of:
0.02939096 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02939096 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15193006 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04338591 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013)
0.00
0.00367036 = product of:
0.00734072 = sum of:
0.00734072 = product of:
0.01468144 = sum of:
0.01468144 = weight(_text_:d in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01468144 = score(doc=928,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08242767 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.04338591 = queryNorm
0.178113 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
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.
- Language
- d
-
Bornmann, L.; Schier, H.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-D.: Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? : a study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes (2011)
0.00
0.0021627804 = product of:
0.0043255608 = sum of:
0.0043255608 = product of:
0.0086511215 = sum of:
0.0086511215 = weight(_text_:d in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0086511215 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08242767 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.04338591 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multilevel-statistical reformulation of citation-based university rankings : the Leiden ranking 2011/2012 (2013)
0.00
0.0021627804 = product of:
0.0043255608 = sum of:
0.0043255608 = product of:
0.0086511215 = sum of:
0.0086511215 = weight(_text_:d in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0086511215 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08242767 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.04338591 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Mutz, R.; Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions : a multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex-ante and ex-post peer evaluation data from the Austrian science fund (2015)
0.00
0.0021627804 = product of:
0.0043255608 = sum of:
0.0043255608 = product of:
0.0086511215 = sum of:
0.0086511215 = weight(_text_:d in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0086511215 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08242767 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.04338591 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
