-
Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015)
0.11
0.1070511 = product of:
0.1427348 = sum of:
0.01721192 = weight(_text_:c in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01721192 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.114332706 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.05515927 = weight(_text_:et in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05515927 = score(doc=3809,freq=6.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.26936764 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.070363596 = sum of:
0.052624524 = weight(_text_:al in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052624524 = score(doc=3809,freq=6.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2631057 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.017739072 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017739072 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- Furthermore, the rise of the web, and subsequently, the social web, has challenged the quasi-monopolistic status of the journal as the main form of scholarly communication and citation indices as the primary assessment mechanisms. Scientific communication is becoming more open, transparent, and diverse: publications are increasingly open access; manuscripts, presentations, code, and data are shared online; research ideas and results are discussed and criticized openly on blogs; and new peer review experiments, with open post publication assessment by anonymous or non-anonymous referees, are underway. The diversification of scholarly production and assessment, paired with the increasing speed of the communication process, leads to an increased information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2008), demanding new filters. The concept of altmetrics, short for alternative (to citation) metrics, was created out of an attempt to provide a filter (Priem et al., 2010) and to steer against the oversimplification of the measurement of scientific success solely on the basis of number of journal articles published and citations received, by considering a wider range of research outputs and metrics (Piwowar, 2013). Although the term altmetrics was introduced in a tweet in 2010 (Priem, 2010), the idea of capturing traces - "polymorphous mentioning" (Cronin et al., 1998, p. 1320) - of scholars and their documents on the web to measure "impact" of science in a broader manner than citations was introduced years before, largely in the context of webometrics (Almind and Ingwersen, 1997; Thelwall et al., 2005):
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Koulouri, X.; Ifrim, C.; Wallace, M.; Pop, F.: Making sense of citations (2017)
0.10
0.09637429 = product of:
0.12849905 = sum of:
0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 3486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442384 = score(doc=3486,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 3486, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3486)
0.06369243 = weight(_text_:et in 3486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06369243 = score(doc=3486,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3110389 = fieldWeight in 3486, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3486)
0.03038278 = product of:
0.06076556 = sum of:
0.06076556 = weight(_text_:al in 3486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06076556 = score(doc=3486,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.30380827 = fieldWeight in 3486, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3486)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Source
- Semantic keyword-based search on structured data sources: COST Action IC1302. Second International KEYSTONE Conference, IKC 2016, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, September 8-9, 2016, Revised Selected Papers. Eds.: A. Calì, A. et al
-
Crespo, J.A.; Herranz, N.; Li, Y.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: ¬The effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices at the web of science subject category level (2014)
0.07
0.0727632 = product of:
0.1455264 = sum of:
0.053077027 = weight(_text_:et in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053077027 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2591991 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.09244937 = sum of:
0.050637968 = weight(_text_:al in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050637968 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.25317356 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.041811395 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041811395 = score(doc=1291,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This article studies the impact of differences in citation practices at the subfield, or Web of Science subject category level, using the model introduced in Crespo, Li, and Ruiz-Castillo (2013a), according to which the number of citations received by an article depends on its underlying scientific influence and the field to which it belongs. We use the same Thomson Reuters data set of about 4.4 million articles used in Crespo et al. (2013a) to analyze 22 broad fields. The main results are the following: First, when the classification system goes from 22 fields to 219 subfields the effect on citation inequality of differences in citation practices increases from ?14% at the field level to 18% at the subfield level. Second, we estimate a set of exchange rates (ERs) over a wide [660, 978] citation quantile interval to express the citation counts of articles into the equivalent counts in the all-sciences case. In the fractional case, for example, we find that in 187 of 219 subfields the ERs are reliable in the sense that the coefficient of variation is smaller than or equal to 0.10. Third, in the fractional case the normalization of the raw data using the ERs (or subfield mean citations) as normalization factors reduces the importance of the differences in citation practices from 18% to 3.8% (3.4%) of overall citation inequality. Fourth, the results in the fractional case are essentially replicated when we adopt a multiplicative approach.
-
Wang, Q.: ¬A bibliometric model for identifying emerging research topics (2018)
0.07
0.06652122 = product of:
0.13304244 = sum of:
0.0900747 = weight(_text_:et in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0900747 = score(doc=4042,freq=4.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.43987548 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
0.04296774 = product of:
0.08593548 = sum of:
0.08593548 = weight(_text_:al in 4042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08593548 = score(doc=4042,freq=4.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.42964977 = fieldWeight in 4042, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4042)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Detecting emerging research topics is essential, not only for research agencies but also for individual researchers. Previous studies have created various bibliographic indicators for the identification of emerging research topics. However, as indicated by Rotolo et al. (Research Policy 44, 1827-1843, 2015), the most serious problems are the lack of an acknowledged definition of emergence and incomplete elaboration of the linkages between the definitions that are used and the indicators that are created. With these issues in mind, this study first adjusts the definition of an emerging technology that Rotolo et al. (2015) have proposed to accommodate the analysis. Next, a set of criteria for the identification of emerging topics is proposed according to the adjusted definition and attributes of emergence. Using two sets of parameter values, several emerging research topics are identified. Finally, evaluation tests are conducted by demonstration of the proposed approach and comparison with previous studies. The strength of the present methodology lies in the fact that it is fully transparent, straightforward, and flexible.
-
Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017)
0.05
0.05331205 = product of:
0.1066241 = sum of:
0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042461623 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
0.06416247 = sum of:
0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040510375 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
0.023652097 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023652097 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Heimeriks, G.; Rotolo, D.: Journal portfolio analysis for countries, cities, and organizations : maps and comparisons (2016)
0.05
0.047037605 = product of:
0.09407521 = sum of:
0.06369243 = weight(_text_:et in 2781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06369243 = score(doc=2781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3110389 = fieldWeight in 2781, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2781)
0.03038278 = product of:
0.06076556 = sum of:
0.06076556 = weight(_text_:al in 2781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06076556 = score(doc=2781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.30380827 = fieldWeight in 2781, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2781)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Using Web of Science data, portfolio analysis in terms of journal coverage can be projected onto a base map for units of analysis such as countries, cities, universities, and firms. The units of analysis under study can be compared statistically across the 10,000+ journals. The interdisciplinarity of the portfolios is measured using Rao-Stirling diversity or Zhang et?al.'s improved measure 2D3. At the country level we find regional differentiation (e.g., Latin American or Asian countries), but also a major divide between advanced and less-developed countries. Israel and Israeli cities outperform other nations and cities in terms of diversity. Universities appear to be specifically related to firms when a number of these units are exploratively compared. The instrument is relatively simple and straightforward, and one can generalize the application to any document set retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS). Further instruction is provided online at http://www.leydesdorff.net/portfolio.
-
Zhou, Q.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The normalization of occurrence and co-occurrence matrices in bibliometrics using Cosine similarities and Ochiai coefficients (2016)
0.05
0.047037605 = product of:
0.09407521 = sum of:
0.06369243 = weight(_text_:et in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06369243 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3110389 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
0.03038278 = product of:
0.06076556 = sum of:
0.06076556 = weight(_text_:al in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06076556 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.30380827 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- We prove that Ochiai similarity of the co-occurrence matrix is equal to cosine similarity in the underlying occurrence matrix. Neither the cosine nor the Pearson correlation should be used for the normalization of co-occurrence matrices because the similarity is then normalized twice, and therefore overestimated; the Ochiai coefficient can be used instead. Results are shown using a small matrix (5 cases, 4 variables) for didactic reasons, and also Ahlgren et?al.'s (2003) co-occurrence matrix of 24 authors in library and information sciences. The overestimation is shown numerically and will be illustrated using multidimensional scaling and cluster dendograms. If the occurrence matrix is not available (such as in internet research or author cocitation analysis) using Ochiai for the normalization is preferable to using the cosine.
-
Momeni, F.; Mayr, P.: Analyzing the research output presented at European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems workshops (2000-2015) (2016)
0.04
0.039198004 = product of:
0.07839601 = sum of:
0.053077027 = weight(_text_:et in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053077027 = score(doc=3106,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2591991 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
0.025318984 = product of:
0.050637968 = sum of:
0.050637968 = weight(_text_:al in 3106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050637968 = score(doc=3106,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.25317356 = fieldWeight in 3106, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3106)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Proceedings of the 15th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems Workshop (NKOS 2016) co-located with the 20th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries 2016 (TPDL 2016), Hannover, Germany, September 9, 2016. Edi. by Philipp Mayr et al. [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/=urn:nbn:de:0074-1676-5]
-
Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014)
0.04
0.038681455 = product of:
0.07736291 = sum of:
0.059623837 = weight(_text_:c in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059623837 = score(doc=1352,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3960601 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
0.017739072 = product of:
0.035478145 = sum of:
0.035478145 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035478145 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:11:29
-
Metrics in research : for better or worse? (2016)
0.03
0.031358406 = product of:
0.06271681 = sum of:
0.042461623 = weight(_text_:et in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042461623 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20477319 = queryWeight, product of:
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20735928 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.692005 = idf(docFreq=1101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
0.020255188 = product of:
0.040510375 = sum of:
0.040510375 = weight(_text_:al in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040510375 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20001286 = queryWeight, product of:
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.20253885 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.582931 = idf(docFreq=1228, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Editor
- Hünenberger, P. et al.
-
Schlögl, C.: Internationale Sichtbarkeit der europäischen und insbesondere der deutschsprachigen Informationswissenschaft (2013)
0.03
0.030428363 = product of:
0.060856726 = sum of:
0.04016114 = weight(_text_:c in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04016114 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2667763 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
0.020695586 = product of:
0.04139117 = sum of:
0.04139117 = weight(_text_:22 in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04139117 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 14:04:09
-
D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011)
0.03
0.026081456 = product of:
0.05216291 = sum of:
0.03442384 = weight(_text_:c in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03442384 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
0.017739072 = product of:
0.035478145 = sum of:
0.035478145 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035478145 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:06:52
-
Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010)
0.02
0.021734547 = product of:
0.043469094 = sum of:
0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02868653 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
0.014782562 = product of:
0.029565124 = sum of:
0.029565124 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029565124 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 19:22:13
-
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)
0.02
0.021734547 = product of:
0.043469094 = sum of:
0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02868653 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.014782562 = product of:
0.029565124 = sum of:
0.029565124 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029565124 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = 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)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
Schubert, T.; Michels, C.: Placing articles in the large publisher nations : is there a "free lunch" in terms of higher impact? (2013)
0.02
0.021734547 = product of:
0.043469094 = sum of:
0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02868653 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 669, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=669)
0.014782562 = product of:
0.029565124 = sum of:
0.029565124 = weight(_text_:22 in 669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029565124 = score(doc=669,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 669, 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=669)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:45:49
-
Liu, S.; Chen, C.: ¬The differences between latent topics in abstracts and citation contexts of citing papers (2013)
0.02
0.021734547 = product of:
0.043469094 = sum of:
0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02868653 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 671, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=671)
0.014782562 = product of:
0.029565124 = sum of:
0.029565124 = weight(_text_:22 in 671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029565124 = score(doc=671,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 671, 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=671)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:50:00
-
Kuan, C.-H.; Liu, J.S.: ¬A new approach for main path analysis : decay in knowledge diffusion (2016)
0.02
0.021734547 = product of:
0.043469094 = sum of:
0.02868653 = weight(_text_:c in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02868653 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2649, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2649)
0.014782562 = product of:
0.029565124 = sum of:
0.029565124 = weight(_text_:22 in 2649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029565124 = score(doc=2649,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15283036 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2649, 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=2649)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Date
- 22. 1.2016 14:23:00
-
Haustein, S.: Scientific interactions and research evaluation : from bibliometrics to Altmetrics (2015)
0.02
0.020284442 = product of:
0.08113777 = sum of:
0.08113777 = weight(_text_:c in 2981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08113777 = score(doc=2981,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.5389696 = fieldWeight in 2981, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2981)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff
-
Lewandowski, D.; Haustein, S.: What does the German-language information science community cite? (2015)
0.02
0.020284442 = product of:
0.08113777 = sum of:
0.08113777 = weight(_text_:c in 2987) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08113777 = score(doc=2987,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.5389696 = fieldWeight in 2987, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2987)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff
-
Chang, K.-C.; Zhou, W.; Zhang, S.; Yuan, C,-C.: Threshold effects of the patent H-index in the relationship between patent citations and market value (2015)
0.01
0.014905959 = product of:
0.059623837 = sum of:
0.059623837 = weight(_text_:c in 2344) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059623837 = score(doc=2344,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1505424 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.043643 = queryNorm
0.3960601 = fieldWeight in 2344, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2344)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
