Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

0.017609475 = product of:
  0.061633162 = sum of:
    0.029979186 = weight(_text_:with in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029979186 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3194935 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
    0.031653978 = product of:
      0.063307956 = sum of:
        0.063307956 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063307956 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

18. 3.2014 19:13:22

0.011939922 = product of:
  0.041789725 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=656,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

According to current research in bibliometrics, percentiles (or percentile rank classes) are the most suitable method for normalizing the citation counts of individual publications in terms of the subject area, the document type, and the publication year. Up to now, bibliometric research has concerned itself primarily with the calculation of percentiles. This study suggests how percentiles (and percentile rank classes) can be analyzed meaningfully for an evaluation study. Publication sets from four universities are compared with each other to provide sample data. These suggestions take into account on the one hand the distribution of percentiles over the publications in the sets (universities here) and on the other hand concentrate on the range of publications with the highest citation impact-that is, the range that is usually of most interest in the evaluation of scientific performance.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:44:17

0.008804738 = product of:
  0.030816581 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.004282741 = product of:
  0.029979186 = sum of:
    0.029979186 = weight(_text_:with in 2328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029979186 = score(doc=2328,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.3194935 = fieldWeight in 2328, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2328)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a postpublication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the interrater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on about 100,000 papers with recommendations from faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies that have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also associated with higher performing papers.

0.0039902087 = product of:
  0.02793146 = sum of:
    0.02793146 = weight(_text_:with in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02793146 = score(doc=4919,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2976705 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.

0.0037089628 = product of:
  0.025962738 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=1109,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Using data compiled for the SCImago Institutions Ranking, we look at whether the subject area type an institution (university or research-focused institution) belongs to (in terms of the fields researched) has an influence on its ranking position. We used latent class analysis to categorize institutions based on their publications in certain subject areas. Even though this categorization does not relate directly to scientific performance, our results show that it exercises an important influence on the outcome of a performance measurement: Certain subject area types of institutions have an advantage in the ranking positions when compared with others. This advantage manifests itself not only when performance is measured with an indicator that is not field-normalized but also for indicators that are field-normalized.

0.0037089628 = product of:
  0.025962738 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=2779,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.

0.0037089628 = product of:
  0.025962738 = sum of:
    0.025962738 = weight(_text_:with in 3230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025962738 = score(doc=3230,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2766895 = fieldWeight in 3230, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3230)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Visualization of scientific results using networks has become popular in scientometric research. We provide base maps for Mendeley reader count data using the publication year 2012 from the Web of Science data. Example networks are shown and explained. The reader can use our base maps to visualize other results with the VOSViewer. The proposed overlay maps are able to show the impact of publications in terms of readership data. The advantage of using our base maps is that it is not necessary for the user to produce a network based on all data (e.g., from 1 year), but can collect the Mendeley data for a single institution (or journals, topics) and can match them with our already produced information. Generation of such large-scale networks is still a demanding task despite the available computer power and digital data availability. Therefore, it is very useful to have base maps and create the network with the overlay technique.

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=1608,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In this study, we examined empirical results on the h index and its most important variants in order to determine whether the variants developed are associated with an incremental contribution for evaluation purposes. The results of a factor analysis using bibliographic data on postdoctoral researchers in biomedicine indicate that regarding the h index and its variants, we are dealing with two types of indices that load on one factor each. One type describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and gives the number of papers in that core. The other type of indices describes the impact of the papers in the core. Because an index for evaluative purposes is a useful yardstick for comparison among scientists if the index corresponds strongly with peer assessments, we calculated a logistic regression analysis with the two factors resulting from the factor analysis as independent variables and peer assessment of the postdoctoral researchers as the dependent variable. The results of the regression analysis show that peer assessments can be predicted better using the factor impact of the productive core than using the factor quantity of the productive core.

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=1190,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Citations measure an aspect of scientific quality: the impact of publications (A.F.J. van Raan, 1996). Percentiles normalize the impact of papers with respect to their publication year and field without using the arithmetic average. They are suitable for visualizing the performance of a single scientist. Beam plots make it possible to present the distributions of percentiles in the different publication years combined with the medians from these percentiles within each year and across all years.

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=1238,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 1238, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1238)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We introduce the quantitative method named "Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy" (RPYS). With this method one can determine the historical roots of research fields and quantify their impact on current research. RPYS is based on the analysis of the frequency with which references are cited in the publications of a specific research field in terms of the publication years of these cited references. The origins show up in the form of more or less pronounced peaks mostly caused by individual publications that are cited particularly frequently. In this study, we use research on graphene and on solar cells to illustrate how RPYS functions, and what results it can deliver.

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 1293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=1293,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 1293, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1293)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This Brief Communication discusses the benefits of citation analysis in research evaluation based on Galton's "Wisdom of Crowds" (1907). Citations are based on the assessment of many which is why they can be considered to have some credibility. However, we show that citations are incomplete assessments and that one cannot assume that a high number of citations correlates with a high level of usefulness. Only when one knows that a rarely cited paper has been widely read is it possible to say-strictly speaking-that it was obviously of little use for further research. Using a comparison with "like" data, we try to determine that cited reference analysis allows for a more meaningful analysis of bibliometric data than times-cited analysis.

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 3541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=3541,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 3541, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3541)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Hutchins, Yuan, Anderson, and Santangelo (2015) proposed the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) as a new field-normalized impact indicator. This study investigates the RCR by correlating it on the level of single publications with established field-normalized indicators and assessments of the publications by peers. We find that the RCR correlates highly with established field-normalized indicators, but the correlation between RCR and peer assessments is only low to medium.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=1007,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Since the 1990s, with the heightened competition and the strong growth of the international higher education market, an increasing number of rankings have been created that measure the scientific performance of an institution based on data. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 (LR) was published early in 2012. Starting from Goldstein and Spiegelhalter's (1996) recommendations for conducting quantitative comparisons among institutions, in this study we undertook a reformulation of the LR by means of multilevel regression models. First, with our models we replicated the ranking results; second, the reanalysis of the LR data showed that only 5% of the PPtop10% total variation is attributable to differences between universities. Beyond that, about 80% of the variation between universities can be explained by differences among countries. If covariates are included in the model the differences among most of the universities become meaningless. Our findings have implications for conducting university rankings in general and for the LR in particular. For example, with Goldstein-adjusted confidence intervals, it is possible to interpret the significance of differences among universities meaningfully: Rank differences among universities should be interpreted as meaningful only if their confidence intervals do not overlap.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 1235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=1235,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 1235, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1235)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

University rankings generally present users with the problem of placing the results given for an institution in context. Only a comparison with the performance of all other institutions makes it possible to say exactly where an institution stands. In order to interpret the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking (based on Scopus data) and the Leiden Ranking (based on Web of Science data), in this study we offer thresholds with which it is possible to assess whether an institution belongs to the top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, top 25%, or top 50% of institutions in the world. The thresholds are based on the excellence rate or PPtop 10%. Both indicators measure the proportion of an institution's publications which belong to the 10% most frequently cited publications and are the most important indicators for measuring institutional impact. For example, while an institution must achieve a value of 24.63% in the Leiden Ranking 2013 to be considered one of the top 1% of institutions worldwide, the SCImago Institutions Ranking requires 30.2%.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=2261,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Many studies (in information science) have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we reexamine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (a) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (b) analyze the data across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with an advanced statistical technique-segmented regression analysis-which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (a) the number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (b) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three essential growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars, and 8 to 9% to 2010.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=2270,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

It is essential for research funding organizations to ensure both the validity and fairness of the grant approval procedure. The ex-ante peer evaluation (EXANTE) of N?=?8,496 grant applications submitted to the Austrian Science Fund from 1999 to 2009 was statistically analyzed. For 1,689 funded research projects an ex-post peer evaluation (EXPOST) was also available; for the rest of the grant applications a multilevel missing data imputation approach was used to consider verification bias for the first time in peer-review research. Without imputation, the predictive validity of EXANTE was low (r?=?.26) but underestimated due to verification bias, and with imputation it was r?=?.49. That is, the decision-making procedure is capable of selecting the best research proposals for funding. In the EXANTE there were several potential biases (e.g., gender). With respect to the EXPOST there was only one real bias (discipline-specific and year-specific differential prediction). The novelty of this contribution is, first, the combining of theoretical concepts of validity and fairness with a missing data imputation approach to correct for verification bias and, second, multilevel modeling to test peer review-based funding decisions for both validity and fairness in terms of potential and real biases.

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=3095,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Citation data for institutes are generally provided as numbers of citations or as relative citation rates (as, for example, in the Leiden Ranking). These numbers can then be compared between the institutes. This study aims to present a new approach for the evaluation of citation data at the institutional level, based on regression models. As example data, the study includes all articles and reviews from the Web of Science for the publication year 2003 (n?=?886,416 papers). The study is based on an in-house database of the Max Planck Society. The study investigates how much the expected number of citations for a publication changes if it contains the address of an institute. The calculation of the expected values allows, on the one hand, investigating how the citation impact of the papers of an institute appears in comparison with the total of all papers. On the other hand, the expected values for several institutes can be compared with one another or with a set of randomly selected publications. Besides the institutes, the regression models include factors which can be assumed to have a general influence on citation counts (e.g., the number of authors).

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=3160,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In the humanities and social sciences, bibliometric methods for the assessment of research performance are (so far) less common. This study uses a concrete example in an attempt to evaluate a research institute from the area of social sciences and humanities with the help of data from Google Scholar (GS). In order to use GS for a bibliometric study, we developed procedures for the normalization of citation impact, building on the procedures of classical bibliometrics. In order to test the convergent validity of the normalized citation impact scores, we calculated normalized scores for a subset of the publications based on data from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. Even if scores calculated with the help of GS and the WoS/Scopus are not identical for the different publication types (considered here), they are so similar that they result in the same assessment of the institute investigated in this study: For example, the institute's papers whose journals are covered in the WoS are cited at about an average rate (compared with the other papers in the journals).

0.0030908023 = product of:
  0.021635616 = sum of:
    0.021635616 = weight(_text_:with in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021635616 = score(doc=3539,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2305746 = fieldWeight in 3539, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3539)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In recent years, the relationship of collaboration among scientists and the citation impact of papers have been frequently investigated. Most of the studies show that the two variables are closely related: An increasing collaboration activity (measured in terms of number of authors, number of affiliations, and number of countries) is associated with an increased citation impact. However, it is not clear whether the increased citation impact is based on the higher quality of papers that profit from more than one scientist giving expert input or other (citation-specific) factors. Thus, the current study addresses this question by using two comprehensive data sets with publications (in the biomedical area) including quality assessments by experts (F1000Prime member scores) and citation data for the publications. The study is based on more than 15,000 papers. Robust regression models are used to investigate the relationship between number of authors, number of affiliations, and number of countries, respectively, and citation impact-controlling for the papers' quality (measured by F1000Prime expert ratings). The results point out that the effect of collaboration activities on impact is largely independent of the papers' quality. The citation advantage is apparently not quality related; citation-specific factors (e.g., self-citations) seem to be important here.