-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008)
0.03
0.033544168 = product of:
0.13417667 = sum of:
0.13417667 = weight(_text_:angewandte in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13417667 = score(doc=2381,freq=4.0), product of:
0.3084216 = queryWeight, product of:
6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
0.044309065 = queryNorm
0.43504304 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.
-
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
0.029649135 = product of:
0.11859654 = sum of:
0.11859654 = weight(_text_:angewandte in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11859654 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3084216 = queryWeight, product of:
6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
0.044309065 = queryNorm
0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.01
0.009004899 = product of:
0.036019597 = sum of:
0.036019597 = product of:
0.072039194 = sum of:
0.072039194 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.072039194 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1551628 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044309065 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.0060032667 = product of:
0.024013067 = sum of:
0.024013067 = product of:
0.048026133 = sum of:
0.048026133 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048026133 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1551628 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044309065 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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)
0.00
0.0045024497 = product of:
0.018009799 = sum of:
0.018009799 = product of:
0.036019597 = sum of:
0.036019597 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036019597 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1551628 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044309065 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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)
0.00
0.0045024497 = product of:
0.018009799 = sum of:
0.018009799 = product of:
0.036019597 = sum of:
0.036019597 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036019597 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1551628 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044309065 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- 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)
0.00
0.0037520416 = product of:
0.015008166 = sum of:
0.015008166 = product of:
0.030016333 = sum of:
0.030016333 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030016333 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1551628 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044309065 = 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)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
