Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

Schreiber, M.: Uncertainties and ambiguities in percentiles and how to avoid them (2013) 0.05

0.04877709 = product of:
  0.09755418 = sum of:
    0.09755418 = sum of:
      0.040948182 = weight(_text_:technology in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040948182 = score(doc=675,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 675, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=675)
      0.05660599 = weight(_text_:22 in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05660599 = score(doc=675,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18288259 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052224867 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 675, 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=675)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date: 22. 3.2013 19:52:05
Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.640-643

Schreiber, M.: Revisiting the g-index : the average number of citations in the g-core (2009) 0.01

0.010237046 = product of:
  0.020474091 = sum of:
    0.020474091 = product of:
      0.040948182 = sum of:
        0.040948182 = weight(_text_:technology in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040948182 = score(doc=3313,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.169-174

Schreiber, M.: Inconsistencies in the highly cited publications indicator (2013) 0.01

0.010237046 = product of:
  0.020474091 = sum of:
    0.020474091 = product of:
      0.040948182 = sum of:
        0.040948182 = weight(_text_:technology in 815) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040948182 = score(doc=815,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 815, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=815)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1298-1302

Schreiber, M.: Do we need the g-index? (2013) 0.01

0.010237046 = product of:
  0.020474091 = sum of:
    0.020474091 = product of:
      0.040948182 = sum of:
        0.040948182 = weight(_text_:technology in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040948182 = score(doc=1113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.2632547 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2396-2399

Schreiber, M.: ¬An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index (2008) 0.01
```
0.009048356 = product of:
  0.018096711 = sum of:
    0.018096711 = product of:
      0.036193423 = sum of:
        0.036193423 = weight(_text_:technology in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036193423 = score(doc=1968,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.23268649 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. To take into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations, L. Egghe (2006a) proposed the g-index as an improvement of the h-index. I have worked out 26 practical cases of physicists from the Institute of Physics at Chemnitz University of Technology, and compare the h and g values in this study. It is demonstrated that the g-index discriminates better between different citation patterns. This also can be achieved by evaluating B.H. Jin's (2006) A-index, which reflects the average number of citations in the h-core, and interpreting it in conjunction with the h-index. h and A can be combined into the R-index to measure the h-core's citation intensity. I also have determined the A and R values for the 26 datasets. For a better comparison, I utilize interpolated indices. The correlations between the various indices as well as with the total number of papers and the highest citation counts are discussed. The largest Pearson correlation coefficient is found between g and R. Although the correlation between g and h is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either h or g.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1513-1522

Schreiber, M.: ¬A case study of the modified Hirsch index hm accounting for multiple coauthors (2009) 0.01

0.008957415 = product of:
  0.01791483 = sum of:
    0.01791483 = product of:
      0.03582966 = sum of:
        0.03582966 = weight(_text_:technology in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03582966 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1274-1282

Schreiber, M.: Empirical evidence for the relevance of fractional scoring in the calculation of percentile rank scores (2013) 0.01

0.008957415 = product of:
  0.01791483 = sum of:
    0.01791483 = product of:
      0.03582966 = sum of:
        0.03582966 = weight(_text_:technology in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03582966 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.861-867

Schreiber, M.: ¬A variant of the h-index to measure recent performance (2015) 0.01

0.008957415 = product of:
  0.01791483 = sum of:
    0.01791483 = product of:
      0.03582966 = sum of:
        0.03582966 = weight(_text_:technology in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03582966 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.23034787 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2373-2380

Schreiber, M.: Fractionalized counting of publications for the g-Index (2009) 0.01

0.007677784 = product of:
  0.015355568 = sum of:
    0.015355568 = product of:
      0.030711137 = sum of:
        0.030711137 = weight(_text_:technology in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030711137 = score(doc=3125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.2145-2150

Waltman, L.; Schreiber, M.: On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators (2013) 0.01

0.007677784 = product of:
  0.015355568 = sum of:
    0.015355568 = product of:
      0.030711137 = sum of:
        0.030711137 = weight(_text_:technology in 616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030711137 = score(doc=616,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 616, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.372-379

Schreiber, M.: Inconsistencies of recently proposed citation impact indicators and how to avoid them (2012) 0.01

0.0063981535 = product of:
  0.012796307 = sum of:
    0.012796307 = product of:
      0.025592614 = sum of:
        0.025592614 = weight(_text_:technology in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025592614 = score(doc=459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15554588 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052224867 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.2062-2073

Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

Years