-
Herb, U.; Geith, U.: Kriterien der qualitativen Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen : Befunde aus dem Projekt visOA (2020)
0.02
0.024097301 = product of:
0.048194602 = sum of:
0.048194602 = product of:
0.0722919 = sum of:
0.047599096 = weight(_text_:c in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047599096 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3048872 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
0.02469281 = weight(_text_:h in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02469281 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Dieser Beitrag beschreibt a) die Ergebnisse einer Literaturstudie zur qualitativen Wahrnehmung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen, b) die Konstruktion eines daraus abgeleiteten Kriterienkatalogs zur Wahrnehmung der Qualität wissenschaftlicher Publikationen sowie c) der Überprüfung dieses Katalogs in qualitativen Interviews mit Wissenschaflterinnen und Wissenschaftlern aus dem Fachspektrum Chemie, Physik, Biologie, Materialwissenschaft und Engineering. Es zeigte sich, dass die Wahrnehmung von Qualität auf äußerlichen und von außen herangetragenen Faktoren, inhaltlichen / semantischen Faktoren und sprachlichen, syntaktischen sowie strukturellen Faktoren beruht.
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 71(2020) H.2/3, S.77-85
-
Fassin, Y.: ¬A new qualitative rating system for scientific publications and a fame index for academics (2018)
0.02
0.024068333 = product of:
0.048136666 = sum of:
0.048136666 = product of:
0.072205 = sum of:
0.041649207 = weight(_text_:c in 4571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041649207 = score(doc=4571,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 4571, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4571)
0.030555792 = weight(_text_:h in 4571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030555792 = score(doc=4571,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.27173662 = fieldWeight in 4571, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4571)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- An innovative approach is proposed for a rating system for academic publications based on a categorization into ratings comparable to financial ratings such as Moody's and S&P ratings (AAA, AA, A, BA, BBB, BB, B, C). The categorization makes use of a variable percentile approach based on recently developed h-related indices. Building on this categorization, a new index is proposed for researchers, the fame-index or f2-index. This new index integrates some qualitative elements related to the influence of a researcher's articles. It better mitigates than the classic h-index.
-
Schlögl, C.; Gorraiz, J.; Bart, C.; Bargmann, M.: Messen und gemessen werden : Möglichkeiten und Grenzen quantitativer Forschungsevaluierungen am Beispiel eines Institutsvergleichs (2001)
0.02
0.023002025 = product of:
0.04600405 = sum of:
0.04600405 = product of:
0.06900607 = sum of:
0.050486468 = weight(_text_:c in 5958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050486468 = score(doc=5958,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.32338172 = fieldWeight in 5958, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5958)
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 5958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=5958,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 5958, 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=5958)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 52(2001) H.4, S.221-228
-
Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008)
0.02
0.022821188 = product of:
0.045642376 = sum of:
0.045642376 = product of:
0.068463564 = sum of:
0.03780299 = weight(_text_:h in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03780299 = score(doc=2352,freq=12.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3361869 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030660577 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.
- Object
- h-index
-
Antonakis, J.; Lalive, R.: Quantifying scholarly impact : IQp versus the Hirsch h (2008)
0.02
0.022517476 = product of:
0.045034952 = sum of:
0.045034952 = product of:
0.067552425 = sum of:
0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029749434 = score(doc=1722,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
0.03780299 = weight(_text_:h in 1722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03780299 = score(doc=1722,freq=12.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3361869 = fieldWeight in 1722, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1722)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Hirsch's (2005) h index of scholarly output has generated substantial interest and wide acceptance because of its apparent ability to quantify scholarly impact simply and accurately. We show that the excitement surrounding h is premature for three reasons: h stagnates with increasing scientific age; it is highly dependent on publication quantity; and it is highly dependent on field-specific citation rates. Thus, it is not useful for comparing scholars across disciplines. We propose the scholarly index of quality and productivity (IQp) as an alternative to h. The new index takes into account a scholar's total impact and also corrects for field-specific citation rates, scholarly productivity, and scientific age. The IQp accurately predicts group membership on a common metric, as tested on a sample of 80 scholars from three populations: (a) Nobel winners in physics (n = 10), chemistry (n = 10), medicine (n = 10), and economics (n = 10), and towering psychologists (n = 10); and scholars who have made more modest contributions to science including randomly selected (b) fellows (n = 15) and (c) members (n = 15) of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The IQp also correlates better with expert ratings of greatness than does the h index.
-
Neuhaus, C.; Daniel, H.-D.: Data sources for performing citation analysis : an overview (2008)
0.02
0.02108514 = product of:
0.04217028 = sum of:
0.04217028 = product of:
0.063255414 = sum of:
0.041649207 = weight(_text_:c in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041649207 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
0.021606207 = weight(_text_:h in 1735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021606207 = score(doc=1735,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 1735, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1735)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Nah, I.W.; Kang, D.-S.; Lee, D.-H.; Chung, Y.-C.: ¬A bibliometric evaluation of research performance in different subject categories (2009)
0.02
0.02108514 = product of:
0.04217028 = sum of:
0.04217028 = product of:
0.063255414 = sum of:
0.041649207 = weight(_text_:c in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041649207 = score(doc=2772,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
0.021606207 = weight(_text_:h in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021606207 = score(doc=2772,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Schlögl, C.; Gorraiz, J.: Sind Downloads die besseren Zeitschriftennutzungsdaten? : Ein Vergleich von Download- und Zitationsidikatoren (2012)
0.02
0.02108514 = product of:
0.04217028 = sum of:
0.04217028 = product of:
0.063255414 = sum of:
0.041649207 = weight(_text_:c in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041649207 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
0.021606207 = weight(_text_:h in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021606207 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 59(2012) H.2, S.87-95
-
¬Die deutsche Zeitschrift für Dokumentation, Informationswissenschaft und Informationspraxis von 1950 bis 2011 : eine vorläufige Bilanz in vier Abschnitten (2012)
0.02
0.020994458 = product of:
0.041988917 = sum of:
0.041988917 = product of:
0.06298337 = sum of:
0.026190678 = weight(_text_:h in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026190678 = score(doc=402,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.03679269 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03679269 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 402, 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=402)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:35:26
- Footnote
- Besteht aus 4 Teilen: Teil 1: Eden, D., A. Arndt, A. Hoffer, T. Raschke u. P. Schön: Die Nachrichten für Dokumentation in den Jahren 1950 bis 1962 (S.159-163). Teil 2: Brose, M., E. durst, D. Nitzsche, D. Veckenstedt u. R. Wein: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1963-1975 (S.164-170). Teil 3: Bösel, J., G. Ebert, P. Garz,, M. Iwanow u. B. Russ: Methoden und Ergebnisse einer statistischen Auswertung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) 1976 bis 1988 (S.171-174). Teil 4: Engelage, H., S. Jansen, R. Mertins, K. Redel u. S. Ring: Statistische Untersuchung der Fachzeitschrift "Nachrichten für Dokumentation" (NfD) / "Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis" (IWP) 1989-2011 (S.164-170).
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.3, S.157-182
-
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)
0.02
0.020136671 = product of:
0.040273342 = sum of:
0.040273342 = product of:
0.06041001 = sum of:
0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029749434 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030660577 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
Schubert, T.; Michels, C.: Placing articles in the large publisher nations : is there a "free lunch" in terms of higher impact? (2013)
0.02
0.020136671 = product of:
0.040273342 = sum of:
0.040273342 = product of:
0.06041001 = sum of:
0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029749434 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030660577 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:45:49
-
Liu, S.; Chen, C.: ¬The differences between latent topics in abstracts and citation contexts of citing papers (2013)
0.02
0.020136671 = product of:
0.040273342 = sum of:
0.040273342 = product of:
0.06041001 = sum of:
0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029749434 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030660577 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:50:00
-
Chan, H.C.; Kim, H.-W.; Tan, W.C.: Information systems citation patterns from International Conference on Information Systems articles (2006)
0.02
0.018437434 = product of:
0.036874868 = sum of:
0.036874868 = product of:
0.0553123 = sum of:
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
0.03679269 = weight(_text_:22 in 201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03679269 = score(doc=201,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 201, 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=201)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 3. 1.2007 17:22:03
-
Jovanovic, M.: ¬Eine kleine Frühgeschichte der Bibliometrie (2012)
0.02
0.018437434 = product of:
0.036874868 = sum of:
0.036874868 = product of:
0.0553123 = sum of:
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
0.03679269 = weight(_text_:22 in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03679269 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 326, 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=326)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2012 19:23:32
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 63(2012) H.2, S.71-80
-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.02
0.018437434 = product of:
0.036874868 = sum of:
0.036874868 = product of:
0.0553123 = sum of:
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
0.03679269 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03679269 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:12:35
-
Ntuli, H.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Chang, T.; Pouris, A.: Does research output cause economic growth or vice versa? : evidence from 34 OECD countries (2015)
0.02
0.018437434 = product of:
0.036874868 = sum of:
0.036874868 = product of:
0.0553123 = sum of:
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
0.03679269 = weight(_text_:22 in 2132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03679269 = score(doc=2132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2132, 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=2132)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 8. 7.2015 22:00:42
-
Gorraiz, J.; Schlögl, C.: Zusammenhang von Zeitschriftennachfrage und -zitationshäufigkeiten : ¬Eine bibliometrische Analyse eines Dokumentlieferdienstes am Beispiel von Subito (2003)
0.02
0.018072978 = product of:
0.036145955 = sum of:
0.036145955 = product of:
0.05421893 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 718, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=718)
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=718,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 718, 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=718)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 50(2003) H.3, S.131-140
-
Juchem, K.; Schlögl, C.; Stock, W.G.: Dimensionen der Zeitschriftenszientometrie am Beispiel von "Buch und Bibliothek" (2006)
0.02
0.018072978 = product of:
0.036145955 = sum of:
0.036145955 = product of:
0.05421893 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=4931,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4931, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4931)
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 4931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=4931,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 4931, 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=4931)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 57(2006) H.1, S.31-37
-
Schlögl, C; Stock, W.G.: Deutsche Zeitschriften des Bibliotheks- und Informationswesens : Leser, Zitate und Redaktionen in szientometrischer Analyse (2006)
0.02
0.018072978 = product of:
0.036145955 = sum of:
0.036145955 = product of:
0.05421893 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 52) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=52,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 52, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=52)
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 52) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=52,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 52, 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=52)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 53(2006) H.5, S.244-255
-
Huang, M.-H.; Tang, M.-C.; Chen, D.-Z.: Inequality of publishing performance and international collaboration in physics (2011)
0.02
0.018072978 = product of:
0.036145955 = sum of:
0.036145955 = product of:
0.05421893 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4467, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4467)
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 4467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=4467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = 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)
