Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)
- Did you mean:
- editor's%3a%22Fong%2c J. u. B. siu%22 2
- editores%3a%22Fong%2c J. u. B. siu%22 2
- editors%3a%22Fong%2c J. u. B. siu%22 2
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.05
0.04646882 = product of: 0.116172045 = sum of: 0.072278604 = weight(_text_:j in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of: 0.072278604 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of: 0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of: 3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218) 0.04049623 = queryNorm 0.5617073 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of: 1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of: 2.0 = termFreq=2.0 3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218) 0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091) 0.04389344 = product of: 0.08778688 = sum of: 0.08778688 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of: 0.08778688 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of: 0.1418109 = queryWeight, product of: 3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218) 0.04049623 = queryNorm 0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of: 1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of: 2.0 = termFreq=2.0 3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218) 0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091) 0.5 = coord(1/2) 0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Nicolaisen, J.: ¬The J-shaped distribution of citedness (2002)
0.01
0.0125190215 = product of: 0.06259511 = sum of: 0.06259511 = weight(_text_:j in 3765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of: 0.06259511 = score(doc=3765,freq=6.0), product of: 0.12867662 = queryWeight, product of: 3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218) 0.04049623 = queryNorm 0.48645282 = fieldWeight in 3765, product of: 2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of: 6.0 = termFreq=6.0 3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218) 0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3765) 0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- A new approach for investigating the correlation between research quality and citation counts is presented and applied to a case study of the relationship between peer evaluations reflected in scholarly book reviews and the citation frequencies of reviewed books. Results of the study designate a J-shaped distribution between the considered variables, presumably caused by a skewed allocation of negative citations. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.