-
Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014)
0.06
0.058572672 = product of:
0.117145345 = sum of:
0.117145345 = sum of:
0.061833043 = weight(_text_:c in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061833043 = score(doc=1352,freq=6.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3960601 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.018519606 = weight(_text_:h in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018519606 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
0.03679269 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03679269 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:11:29
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.05
0.05309011 = product of:
0.10618022 = sum of:
0.10618022 = sum of:
0.041649207 = weight(_text_:c in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041649207 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.021606207 = weight(_text_:h in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021606207 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.042924806 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042924806 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, 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=900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 14:04:09
- Source
- Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 64(2013) H.1, S.1-8
-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.05
0.052030575 = product of:
0.10406115 = sum of:
0.10406115 = sum of:
0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029749434 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.043651134 = weight(_text_:h in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043651134 = score(doc=4147,freq=16.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030660577 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 19:22:13
- Object
- h-index
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Liu, J.S.: ¬A new approach for main path analysis : decay in knowledge diffusion (2016)
0.04
0.03792151 = product of:
0.07584302 = sum of:
0.07584302 = sum of:
0.029749434 = weight(_text_:c in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029749434 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2649, 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=2649)
0.015433006 = weight(_text_:h in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015433006 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.030660577 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030660577 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2649, 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=2649)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:23:00
-
Malesios, C.: Some variations on the standard theoretical models for the h-index : a comparative analysis (2015)
0.04
0.035737943 = product of:
0.071475886 = sum of:
0.071475886 = product of:
0.107213825 = sum of:
0.058900878 = weight(_text_:c in 2267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058900878 = score(doc=2267,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3772787 = fieldWeight in 2267, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2267)
0.04831295 = weight(_text_:h in 2267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04831295 = score(doc=2267,freq=10.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.42965335 = fieldWeight in 2267, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2267)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Various mathematical models have been proposed in the recent literature for estimating the h-index using measures such as number of articles (P) and citations received (C). These models have been previously empirically tested assuming a mathematical model and predetermining the models' parameter values at some fixed constant. The present study, from a statistical modeling viewpoint, investigates alternative distributions commonly used for this type of point data. The study shows that the typical assumptions for the parameters of the h-index mathematical models in such representations are not always realistic, with more suitable specifications being favorable. Prediction of the h-index is also demonstrated.
- Object
- h-index
-
Chang, K.-C.; Zhou, W.; Zhang, S.; Yuan, C,-C.: Threshold effects of the patent H-index in the relationship between patent citations and market value (2015)
0.04
0.03573221 = product of:
0.07146442 = sum of:
0.07146442 = product of:
0.10719663 = sum of:
0.061833043 = weight(_text_:c in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061833043 = score(doc=2344,freq=6.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.3960601 = fieldWeight in 2344, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2344)
0.045363586 = weight(_text_:h in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045363586 = score(doc=2344,freq=12.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 2344, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2344)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This study employs a panel threshold regression model to test whether the patent h-index has a threshold effect on the relationship between patent citations and market value in the pharmaceutical industry. It aims to bridge the gap in extant research on this topic. This study demonstrates that the patent h-index has a triple threshold effect on the relationship between patent citations and market value. When the patent h-index is less than or equal to the lowest threshold, 4, there is a positive relationship between patent citations and market value. This study indicates that the first regime (where the patent h-index is less than or equal to 4) is optimal, because this is where the extent of the positive relationship between patent citations and market value is the greatest.
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬The Hirsch index of a shifted Lotka function and its relation with the impact factor (2012)
0.03
0.031524464 = product of:
0.06304893 = sum of:
0.06304893 = product of:
0.09457339 = sum of:
0.041649207 = weight(_text_:c in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041649207 = score(doc=243,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 243, 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=243)
0.052924186 = weight(_text_:h in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052924186 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.47066164 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.
- Object
- h-index
-
Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010)
0.03
0.03041938 = product of:
0.06083876 = sum of:
0.06083876 = product of:
0.09125814 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=3418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 3418, 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=3418)
0.05555882 = weight(_text_:h in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05555882 = score(doc=3418,freq=18.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.49409178 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
- Object
- h-index
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Huang, M.-H.; Chen, D.-Z.: ¬A two-dimensional approach to performance evaluation for a large number of research institutions (2012)
0.02
0.024246179 = product of:
0.048492357 = sum of:
0.048492357 = product of:
0.072738536 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=58,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 58, 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=58)
0.037039213 = weight(_text_:h in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037039213 = score(doc=58,freq=8.0), product of:
0.11244635 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 58, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=58)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We characterize the research performance of a large number of institutions in a two-dimensional coordinate system based on the shapes of their h-cores so that their relative performance can be conveniently observed and compared. The 2D distribution of these institutions is then utilized (1) to categorize the institutions into a number of qualitative groups revealing the nature of their performance, and (2) to determine the position of a specific institution among the set of institutions. The method is compared with some major h-type indices and tested with empirical data using clinical medicine as an illustrative case. The method is extensible to the research performance evaluation at other aggregation levels such as researchers, journals, departments, and nations.
-
D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011)
0.02
0.024164006 = product of:
0.048328012 = sum of:
0.048328012 = product of:
0.07249202 = sum of:
0.035699323 = weight(_text_:c in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035699323 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15612034 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
0.03679269 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03679269 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15849307 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045260075 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:06:52
-
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.: 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
-
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
-
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)
