-
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)
0.03
0.030517697 = product of:
0.061035395 = sum of:
0.061035395 = product of:
0.12207079 = sum of:
0.12207079 = weight(_text_:z in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12207079 = score(doc=2954,freq=6.0), product of:
0.23903055 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04478481 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
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.
-
Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013)
0.02
0.021143282 = product of:
0.042286564 = sum of:
0.042286564 = product of:
0.08457313 = sum of:
0.08457313 = weight(_text_:z in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08457313 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23903055 = queryWeight, product of:
5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
0.04478481 = 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)
0.5 = 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.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.02
0.018203171 = product of:
0.036406342 = sum of:
0.036406342 = product of:
0.072812684 = sum of:
0.072812684 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.072812684 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15682878 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04478481 = 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
0.012135447 = product of:
0.024270894 = sum of:
0.024270894 = product of:
0.048541788 = sum of:
0.048541788 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048541788 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15682878 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04478481 = 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
0.0091015855 = product of:
0.018203171 = sum of:
0.018203171 = product of:
0.036406342 = sum of:
0.036406342 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036406342 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15682878 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04478481 = 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.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.01
0.0091015855 = product of:
0.018203171 = sum of:
0.018203171 = product of:
0.036406342 = sum of:
0.036406342 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036406342 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15682878 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04478481 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
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
0.0075846547 = product of:
0.015169309 = sum of:
0.015169309 = product of:
0.030338619 = sum of:
0.030338619 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030338619 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15682878 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04478481 = 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
