Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × author_ss:"Sanderson, M."
  1. Sanderson, M.: Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics (2008) 0.00 
    0.0039062058 = product of:
  0.015624823 = sum of:
    0.015624823 = weight(_text_:for in 1867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015624823 = score(doc=1867,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.17601961 = fieldWeight in 1867, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1867)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A brief communication appearing in this journal ranked UK-based LIS and (some) IR academics by their h-index using data derived from the Thomson ISI Web of Science(TM) (WoS). In this brief communication, the same academics were re-ranked, using other popular citation databases. It was found that for academics who publish more in computer science forums, their h was significantly different due to highly cited papers missed by WoS; consequently, their rank changed substantially. The study was widened to a broader set of UK-based LIS and IR academics in which results showed similar statistically significant differences. A variant of h, hmx, was introduced that allowed a ranking of the academics using all citation databases together.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.7, S.1184-1190
  2. Vrettas, G.; Sanderson, M.: Conferences versus journals in computer science (2015) 0.00 
    0.0039062058 = product of:
  0.015624823 = sum of:
    0.015624823 = weight(_text_:for in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015624823 = score(doc=2347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08876751 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047278564 = queryNorm
        0.17601961 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.8775425 = idf(docFreq=18385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The question of which type of computer science (CS) publication-conference or journal-is likely to result in more citations for a published paper is addressed. A series of data sets are examined and joined in order to analyze the citations of over 195,000 conference papers and 108,000 journal papers. Two means of evaluating the citations of journals and conferences are explored: h5 and average citations per paper; it was found that h5 has certain biases that make it a difficult measure to use (despite it being the main measure used by Google Scholar). Results from the analysis show that CS, as a discipline, values conferences as a publication venue more highly than any other academic field of study. The analysis also shows that a small number of elite CS conferences have the highest average paper citation rate of any publication type, although overall, citation rates in conferences are no higher than in journals. It is also shown that the length of a paper is correlated with citation rate.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2674-2684

Years