Search (51 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Rousseau, R."
  1. Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012) 0.03 
    0.025220998 = product of:
  0.050441995 = sum of:
    0.01841403 = weight(_text_:for in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01841403 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.20744109 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
    0.032027967 = product of:
      0.064055935 = sum of:
        0.064055935 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064055935 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    14. 2.2012 12:53:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429
  2. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996) 0.02 
    0.015132599 = product of:
  0.030265197 = sum of:
    0.0110484185 = weight(_text_:for in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0110484185 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.12446466 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
    0.019216778 = product of:
      0.038433556 = sum of:
        0.038433556 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038433556 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
    Source
    Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
  3. Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006) 0.02 
    0.015132599 = product of:
  0.030265197 = sum of:
    0.0110484185 = weight(_text_:for in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0110484185 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.12446466 = fieldWeight in 5270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5270)
    0.019216778 = product of:
      0.038433556 = sum of:
        0.038433556 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038433556 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:26:24
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.342-346
  4. Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003) 0.01 
    0.013771205 = product of:
  0.02754241 = sum of:
    0.014731225 = weight(_text_:for in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014731225 = score(doc=5171,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.16595288 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.012811186 = product of:
      0.025622372 = sum of:
        0.025622372 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025622372 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16556148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047278564 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
    Date
    9. 7.2006 10:22:35
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.6, S.549-568
  5. Rousseau, R.: ¬A table for estimating the exponent in Lotka's law (1993) 0.01 
    0.0073656123 = product of:
  0.02946245 = sum of:
    0.02946245 = weight(_text_:for in 5653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02946245 = score(doc=5653,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.33190575 = fieldWeight in 5653, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5653)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  6. Rousseau, R.: Timelines in citation research (2006) 0.01 
    0.0073656123 = product of:
  0.02946245 = sum of:
    0.02946245 = weight(_text_:for in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02946245 = score(doc=1746,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.33190575 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The timeline used in ISI's Journal Citation Reports (JCR; Thomson ISI, formerly the Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA) for half-life calculations, is not a timeline for (average) cited age. These two timelines are shifted over half a year.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.10, S.1404-1405
  7. Rousseau, R.: Citation data as a proxy for quality or scientific influence are at best PAC (probably approximately correct) (2016) 0.01 
    0.0073656123 = product of:
  0.02946245 = sum of:
    0.02946245 = weight(_text_:for in 3210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02946245 = score(doc=3210,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.33190575 = fieldWeight in 3210, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3210)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this communication I give a brief introduction to Valiant's probably approximately correct (PAC) theory, provide an extension that goes beyond Valiant's ideas (and beyond the domain for which this theory was meant), and come to an interpretation in terms of research evaluation. As such, PAC provides a framework for a theory of research evaluation.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3092-3094
  8. Rousseau, R.; Ding, J.: Does international collaboration yield a higher citation potential for US scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary Journals? (2016) 0.01 
    0.0072056293 = product of:
  0.028822517 = sum of:
    0.028822517 = weight(_text_:for in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028822517 = score(doc=2860,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.3246967 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Generally, multicountry papers receive more citations than single-country ones. In this contribution, we examine if this rule also applies to American scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals. Concretely, we compare the citations received by American scientists in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It is shown that, statistically, American scientists publishing in Nature and Science do not benefit from international collaboration. This statement also holds for communicated submissions, but not for direct and for contributed submissions, to PNAS.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.1009-1013
  9. Rousseau, S.; Rousseau, R.: Interactions between journal attributes and authors' willingness to wait for editorial decisions (2012) 0.01 
    0.0067657465 = product of:
  0.027062986 = sum of:
    0.027062986 = weight(_text_:for in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027062986 = score(doc=250,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.3048749 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In this article, we report on a discrete choice experiment to determine the willingness-to-wait (WTW) in the context of journal submissions. Respondents to our survey are mostly active in the information sciences, including librarians. Besides WTW, other attributes included in the study are the quality of the editorial board, the quality of referee reports, the probability of being accepted, the ISI impact factor, and the standing of the journal among peers. Interaction effects originating from scientists' personal characteristics (age, region of origin, motivations to publish) with the WTW are highlighted. A difference was made between submitting a high quality article and a standard article. Among the interesting results obtained from our analysis we mention that for a high-quality article, researchers are willing to wait some 18 months longer for a journal with an ISI impact factor above 2 than for a journal without an impact factor, keeping all other factors constant. For a standard article, the WTW decreases to some 8 months. Gender had no effect on our conclusions.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.6, S.1213-1225
  10. Rousseau, S.; Rousseau, R.: Metric-wiseness (2015) 0.01 
    0.0064449105 = product of:
  0.025779642 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 6069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=6069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 6069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6069)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2389
  11. Hu, X.; Rousseau, R.; Chen, J.: ¬A new approach for measuring the value of patents based on structural indicators for ego patent citation networks (2012) 0.01 
    0.0064449105 = product of:
  0.025779642 = sum of:
    0.025779642 = weight(_text_:for in 445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025779642 = score(doc=445,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.29041752 = fieldWeight in 445, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=445)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Technology sectors differ in terms of technological complexity. When studying technology and innovation through patent analysis it is well known that similar amounts of technological knowledge can produce different numbers of patented innovation as output. A new multilayered approach to measure the technological value of patents based on ego patent citation networks (PCNs) is developed in this study. The results show that the structural indicators for the ego PCN developed in this contribution can characterize groups of patents and, hence, in an indirect way, the health of companies.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.9, S.1834-1842
  12. Zhang, L.; Rousseau, R.; Glänzel, W.: Document-type country profiles (2011) 0.01 
    0.0063788076 = product of:
  0.02551523 = sum of:
    0.02551523 = weight(_text_:for in 4487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02551523 = score(doc=4487,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.28743884 = fieldWeight in 4487, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4487)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A bibliometric method for analyzing and visualizing national research profiles is adapted to describe national preferences for publishing particular document types. Similarities in national profiles and national peculiarities are discussed based on the publication output of the 26 most active countries indexed in the Web of Science annual volume 2007.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1403-1411
  13. Liu, Y.; Rafols, I.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A framework for knowledge integration and diffusion (2012) 0.01 
    0.0061762533 = product of:
  0.024705013 = sum of:
    0.024705013 = weight(_text_:for in 297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024705013 = score(doc=297,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.27831143 = fieldWeight in 297, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=297)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to introduce a general framework for the analysis of knowledge integration and diffusion using bibliometric data. Design/methodology/approach - The authors propose that in order to characterise knowledge integration and diffusion of a given issue (the source, for example articles on a topic or by an organisation, etc.), one has to choose a set of elements from the source (the intermediary set, for example references, keywords, etc.). This set can then be classified into categories (cats), thus making it possible to investigate its diversity. The set can also be characterised according to the coherence of a network associated to it. Findings - This framework allows a methodology to be developed to assess knowledge integration and diffusion. Such methodologies can be useful for a number of science policy issues, including the assessment of interdisciplinarity in research and dynamics of research networks. Originality/value - The main contribution of this article is to provide a simple and easy to use generalisation of an existing approach to study interdisciplinarity, bringing knowledge integration and knowledge diffusion together in one framework.
  14. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A measure for the cohesion of weighted networks (2003) 0.01 
    0.005638122 = product of:
  0.022552488 = sum of:
    0.022552488 = weight(_text_:for in 5157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022552488 = score(doc=5157,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.2540624 = fieldWeight in 5157, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5157)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Measurement of the degree of interconnectedness in graph like networks of hyperlinks or citations can indicate the existence of research fields and assist in comparative evaluation of research efforts. In this issue we begin with Egghe and Rousseau who review compactness measures and investigate the compactness of a network as a weighted graph with dissimilarity values characterizing the arcs between nodes. They make use of a generalization of the Botofogo, Rivlin, Shneiderman, (BRS) compaction measure which treats the distance between unreachable nodes not as infinity but rather as the number of nodes in the network. The dissimilarity values are determined by summing the reciprocals of the weights of the arcs in the shortest chain between two nodes where no weight is smaller than one. The BRS measure is then the maximum value for the sum of the dissimilarity measures less the actual sum divided by the difference between the maximum and minimum. The Wiener index, the sum of all elements in the dissimilarity matrix divided by two, is then computed for Small's particle physics co-citation data as well as the BRS measure, the dissimilarity values and shortest paths. The compactness measure for the weighted network is smaller than for the un-weighted. When the bibliographic coupling network is utilized it is shown to be less compact than the co-citation network which indicates that the new measure produces results that confirm to an obvious case.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.3, S.193-202
  15. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Rousseau, S.: TOP-curves (2007) 0.01 
    0.0055814567 = product of:
  0.022325827 = sum of:
    0.022325827 = weight(_text_:for in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022325827 = score(doc=50,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.25150898 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Several characteristics of classical Lorenz curves make them unsuitable for the study of a group of topperformers. TOP-curves, defined as a kind of mirror image of TIP-curves used in poverty studies, are shown to possess the properties necessary for adequate empirical ranking of various data arrays, based on the properties of the highest performers (i.e., the core). TOP-curves and essential TOP-curves, also introduced in this article, simultaneously represent the incidence, intensity, and inequality among the top. It is shown that TOPdominance partial order, introduced in this article, is stronger than Lorenz dominance order. In this way, this article contributes to the study of cores, a central issue in applied informetrics.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.6, S.777-785
  16. Rousseau, R.: Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator (2012) 0.01 
    0.0055814567 = product of:
  0.022325827 = sum of:
    0.022325827 = weight(_text_:for in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022325827 = score(doc=4993,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.25150898 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We introduce the notions of congruous indicator of relative performance and congruous indicator of absolute performance. These notions are very similar to the notions of independence and consistency, yet slightly different. It is shown that percentile rank scores, as recently introduced by Leydesdorff, Bornmann, Mutz, and Opthof (2011), are strictly congruous indicators of relative performance, and similarly, that the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3), introduced by Leydesdorff and Bornmann (2011), is a strictly congruous indicator of absolute performance. Our analysis highlights the challenge of finding adequate axioms for ranking and for research evaluation.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.416-420
  17. Yan, S.; Rousseau, R.; Huang, S.: Contributions of chinese authors in PLOS ONE (2016) 0.01 
    0.0055814567 = product of:
  0.022325827 = sum of:
    0.022325827 = weight(_text_:for in 2765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022325827 = score(doc=2765,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.25150898 = fieldWeight in 2765, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2765)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Beginning with a short review of Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals, we focus on PLOS ONE and more specifically the contributions of Chinese authors to this journal. It is shown that their contribution is growing exponentially. In 2013 almost one fifth of all publications in this journal had at least one Chinese author. The average number of citations per publication is approximately the same for articles with a Chinese author and for articles without any Chinese coauthor. Using the odds-ratio, we could not find arguments that Chinese authors in PLOS ONE excessively cite other Chinese contributions.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.543-549
  18. Rousseau, R.: Use of an existing thesaurus in a knowledge based indexing and retrieval system (1991) 0.01 
    0.0055242092 = product of:
  0.022096837 = sum of:
    0.022096837 = weight(_text_:for in 3007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022096837 = score(doc=3007,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.24892932 = fieldWeight in 3007, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3007)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A simple heuristic method is proposed to use an existing thesaurus for weighted indexing
  19. Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000) 0.01 
    0.0055242092 = product of:
  0.022096837 = sum of:
    0.022096837 = weight(_text_:for in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022096837 = score(doc=4384,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.24892932 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 51(2000) no.2, S.145-157
  20. Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.: Thoughts on uncitedness : Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies (2011) 0.01 
    0.0055242092 = product of:
  0.022096837 = sum of:
    0.022096837 = weight(_text_:for in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022096837 = score(doc=4994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.24892932 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Contrary to what one might expect, Nobel laureates and Fields medalists have a rather large fraction (10% or more) of uncited publications. This is the case for (in total) 75 examined researchers from the fields of mathematics (Fields medalists), physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine (Nobel laureates). We study several indicators for these researchers, including the h-index, total number of publications, average number of citations per publication, the number (and fraction) of uncited publications, and their interrelations. The most remarkable result is a positive correlation between the h-index and the number of uncited articles. We also present a Lotkaian model, which partially explains the empirically found regularities.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Erratum. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.429.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1637-1644

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 50
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications