Search (1252 results, page 1 of 63)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Bonitz, M.; Scharnhorst, A.: National science systems and the Matthew effect for countries (2000) 0.19
    0.18763466 = product of:
      0.26268852 = sum of:
        0.03464444 = weight(_text_:g in 6643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03464444 = score(doc=6643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 6643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6643)
        0.12181503 = weight(_text_:rahmstorf in 6643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12181503 = score(doc=6643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26091042 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.042927 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.4668845 = fieldWeight in 6643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.042927 = idf(docFreq=104, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6643)
        0.026331145 = weight(_text_:u in 6643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026331145 = score(doc=6643,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 6643, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6643)
        0.0092349285 = weight(_text_:a in 6643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0092349285 = score(doc=6643,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 6643, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6643)
        0.07066295 = product of:
          0.1413259 = sum of:
            0.1413259 = weight(_text_:sigel in 6643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.1413259 = score(doc=6643,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.28102946 = queryWeight, product of:
                  7.5860133 = idf(docFreq=60, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03704574 = queryNorm
                0.5028864 = fieldWeight in 6643, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  7.5860133 = idf(docFreq=60, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6643)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.71428573 = coord(5/7)
    
    Abstract
    In this paper we continue our investigation of the micro-structure of the Matthew effect for countries (MEC). After the recent identification of a new type of scientific journal, the Matthew core journal (MCJ), we study the relations of MCJ to other types of core journals - publication, citation, and participation core journals. 144 MCJ out of 2712 SCI-journals in our sample account for half of the MEC. A typology of the MCJ can be established. The exclusive role of the MCJ consists in carrying a high number of Matthew citations due to the competition of many countries for a high impact of their papers. The research fronts in science are "boiling" in the MCJ. The 144 MCJ are sufficient to construct a country rank distribution that reflects world science performance
    Source
    Globalisierung und Wissensorganisation: Neue Aspekte für Wissen, Wissenschaft und Informationssysteme: Proceedings der 6. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Hamburg, 23.-25.9.1999. Hrsg.: H.P. Ohly, G. Rahmstorf u. A. Sigel
    Type
    a
  2. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.05
    0.04540032 = product of:
      0.10593408 = sum of:
        0.06928888 = weight(_text_:g in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06928888 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
        0.006530081 = weight(_text_:a in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006530081 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
        0.030115116 = product of:
          0.060230233 = sum of:
            0.060230233 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.060230233 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03704574 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
    Type
    a
  3. Ye, F.Y.; Yu, S.S.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations at the country level and its dynamic evolution under the pressures of globalization (2013) 0.04
    0.04008572 = product of:
      0.09353335 = sum of:
        0.048994634 = weight(_text_:g in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048994634 = score(doc=1110,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.35212007 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
        0.037237864 = weight(_text_:u in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037237864 = score(doc=1110,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.30697915 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
        0.007300853 = weight(_text_:a in 1110) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007300853 = score(doc=1110,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1110, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1110)
      0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    
    Abstract
    Using data from the Web of Science (WoS), we analyze the mutual information among university, industry, and government addresses (U-I-G) at the country level for a number of countries. The dynamic evolution of the Triple Helix can thus be compared among developed and developing nations in terms of cross-sectional coauthorship relations. The results show that the Triple Helix interactions among the three subsystems U-I-G become less intensive over time, but unequally for different countries. We suggest that globalization erodes local Triple Helix relations and thus can be expected to have increased differentiation in national systems since the mid-1990s. This effect of globalization is more pronounced in developed countries than in developing ones. In the dynamic analysis, we focus on a more detailed comparison between China and the United States. Specifically, the Chinese Academy of the (Social) Sciences is changing increasingly from a public research institute to an academic one, and this has a measurable effect on China's position in the globalization.
    Type
    a
  4. Schreiber, M.: Revisiting the g-index : the average number of citations in the g-core (2009) 0.03
    0.034815725 = product of:
      0.121855035 = sum of:
        0.113148265 = weight(_text_:g in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.113148265 = score(doc=3313,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.81318647 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
        0.008706774 = weight(_text_:a in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008706774 = score(doc=3313,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    The g-index is discussed in terms of the average number of citations of the publications in the g-core, showing that it combines features of the h-index and the A-index in one number. For a visualization, data of 8 famous physicists are presented and analyzed. In comparison with the h-index, the g-index increases between 67% and 144%, on average by a factor of 2.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  5. Rousseau, R.: Egghe's g-index is not a proper concentration measure (2015) 0.03
    0.030635485 = product of:
      0.107224196 = sum of:
        0.09798927 = weight(_text_:g in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09798927 = score(doc=1864,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
        0.0092349285 = weight(_text_:a in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0092349285 = score(doc=1864,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  6. Vinkler, P.: Core indicators and professional recognition of scientometricians (2017) 0.03
    0.030614354 = product of:
      0.07143349 = sum of:
        0.018707681 = product of:
          0.037415363 = sum of:
            0.037415363 = weight(_text_:p in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.037415363 = score(doc=3329,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03704574 = queryNorm
                0.28089944 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.050004944 = weight(_text_:g in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050004944 = score(doc=3329,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.35938108 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
        0.0027208668 = weight(_text_:a in 3329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0027208668 = score(doc=3329,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3329, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3329)
      0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    
    Abstract
    The publication performance of 30 scientometricians is studied. The individuals are classified into 3 cohorts according to their manifested professional recognition, as Price medalists (Pm), members of the editorial board of Scientometrics and the Journal of Informetrics (Rw), and session chairs (Sc) at an International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) conference. Several core impact indicators are calculated: h, g, p, citation distribution score (CDS), percentage rank position (PRP), and weight of influence of papers (WIP10). The indices significantly correlate with each other. The mean value of the indices of the cohorts decreases parallel with the decrease in professional recognition: Pm?>?Rw?>?Sc. The 30 scientometricians studied were clustered according to the core impact indices. The members in the clusters so obtained overlap only partly with the members in the cohorts made by professional recognition. The Total Overlap is calculated by dividing the sum of the diagonal elements in the cohorts-clusters matrix with the total number of elements, times 100. The highest overlap (76.6%) was obtained with the g-index. Accordingly, the g-index seems to have the greatest discriminative power in the system studied. The cohorts-clusters method may be used for validating scientometric indicators.
    Type
    a
  7. Schreiber, M.: Fractionalized counting of publications for the g-Index (2009) 0.03
    0.029862674 = product of:
      0.10451935 = sum of:
        0.09798927 = weight(_text_:g in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09798927 = score(doc=3125,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
        0.006530081 = weight(_text_:a in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006530081 = score(doc=3125,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    L. Egghe ([2008]) studied the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index, counting the authorship of cited articles in a fractional way. But his definition of the gF-index for the case that the article count is fractionalized yielded values that were close to or even larger than the original g-index. Here I propose an alternative definition by which the g-index is modified in such a way that the resulting gm-index is always smaller than the original g-index. Based on the interpretation of the g-index as the highest number of articles of a scientist that received on average g or more citations, in the specification of the new gm-index the articles are counted fractionally not only for the rank but also for the average.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  8. Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010) 0.03
    0.029862674 = product of:
      0.10451935 = sum of:
        0.09798927 = weight(_text_:g in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09798927 = score(doc=3418,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.70424014 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
        0.006530081 = weight(_text_:a in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006530081 = score(doc=3418,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  9. Folly, G.; Hajtman, B.; Nagy, J.I.; Ruff, I.: Some methodological problems in ranking scientists by citation analysis (1981) 0.03
    0.028883414 = product of:
      0.10109194 = sum of:
        0.09238517 = weight(_text_:g in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09238517 = score(doc=3275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.663964 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
        0.008706774 = weight(_text_:a in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008706774 = score(doc=3275,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Type
    a
  10. Hovden, R.: Bibliometrics for Internet media : applying the h-index to YouTube (2013) 0.03
    0.02825606 = product of:
      0.098896205 = sum of:
        0.090378545 = weight(_text_:g in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090378545 = score(doc=1111,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.6495425 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
        0.008517661 = weight(_text_:a in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008517661 = score(doc=1111,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  11. Schreiber, M.: Do we need the g-index? (2013) 0.03
    0.028154798 = product of:
      0.09854179 = sum of:
        0.09238517 = weight(_text_:g in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09238517 = score(doc=1113,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.663964 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
        0.006156619 = weight(_text_:a in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006156619 = score(doc=1113,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    Using a very small sample of 8 data sets it was recently shown by De Visscher (2011) that the g-index is very close to the square root of the total number of citations. It was argued that there is no bibliometrically meaningful difference. Using another somewhat larger empirical sample of 26 data sets I show that the difference may be larger and I argue in favor of the g-index.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  12. Egghe, L.: ¬A good normalized impact and concentration measure (2014) 0.03
    0.027139202 = product of:
      0.0949872 = sum of:
        0.08165773 = weight(_text_:g in 1508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08165773 = score(doc=1508,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.5868668 = fieldWeight in 1508, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1508)
        0.013329471 = weight(_text_:a in 1508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013329471 = score(doc=1508,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.3120525 = fieldWeight in 1508, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1508)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    It is shown that a normalized version of the g-index is a good normalized impact and concentration measure. A proposal for such a measure by Bartolucci is improved.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  13. Egghe, L.: Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship (2008) 0.03
    0.026332015 = product of:
      0.09216205 = sum of:
        0.0848612 = weight(_text_:g in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0848612 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.60988986 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
        0.007300853 = weight(_text_:a in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007300853 = score(doc=2004,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    This article studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: One counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases, we define the fractional h- and g-indexes, and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h- and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the coauthorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. In a concrete example (the publication citation list of the present author), we make explicit calculations of these fractional h- and g-indexes and show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  14. Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007) 0.03
    0.026289241 = product of:
      0.06134156 = sum of:
        0.035108197 = weight(_text_:u in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035108197 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
        0.006156619 = weight(_text_:a in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006156619 = score(doc=1144,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
        0.020076746 = product of:
          0.040153492 = sum of:
            0.040153492 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040153492 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03704574 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1144, 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=1144)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    
    Date
    30.12.2007 11:22:39
    Source
    ¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez
    Type
    a
  15. Kudlow, P.; Dziadyk, D.B.; Rutledge, A.; Shachak, A.; Eysenbach, G.: ¬The citation advantage of promoted articles in a cross-publisher distribution platform : a 12-month randomized controlled trial (2020) 0.03
    0.02569076 = product of:
      0.059945107 = sum of:
        0.022912137 = product of:
          0.045824274 = sum of:
            0.045824274 = weight(_text_:p in 5969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.045824274 = score(doc=5969,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03704574 = queryNorm
                0.34403014 = fieldWeight in 5969, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5969)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.028870367 = weight(_text_:g in 5969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028870367 = score(doc=5969,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 5969, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5969)
        0.008162601 = weight(_text_:a in 5969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008162601 = score(doc=5969,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 5969, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5969)
      0.42857143 = coord(3/7)
    
    Abstract
    There is currently a paucity of evidence-based strategies that have been shown to increase citations of peer-reviewed articles following their publication. We conducted a 12-month randomized controlled trial to examine whether the promotion of article links in an online cross-publisher distribution platform (TrendMD) affects citations. In all, 3,200 articles published in 64 peer-reviewed journals across eight subject areas were block randomized at the subject level to either the TrendMD group (n = 1,600) or the control group (n = 1,600) of the study. Our primary outcome compares the mean citations of articles randomized to TrendMD versus control after 12 months. Articles randomized to TrendMD showed a 50% increase in mean citations relative to control at 12 months. The difference in mean citations at 12 months for articles randomized to TrendMD versus control was 5.06, 95% confidence interval [2.87, 7.25], was statistically significant (p?<?.001) and found in three of eight subject areas. At 6 months following publication, articles randomized to TrendMD showed a smaller, yet statistically significant (p = .005), 21% increase in mean citations, relative to control. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate how an intervention can be used to increase citations of peer-reviewed articles after they have been published.
    Type
    a
  16. Bartolucci, F.: ¬A comparison between the g-index and the h-index based on concentration (2015) 0.03
    0.02564068 = product of:
      0.08974238 = sum of:
        0.08000791 = weight(_text_:g in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08000791 = score(doc=2350,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
        0.0097344695 = weight(_text_:a in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0097344695 = score(doc=2350,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    I discuss how, given a certain number of articles and citations of these articles, the h-index and the g-index are affected by the level of concentration of the citations. This offers the opportunity for a comparison between these 2 indices from a new perspective.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  17. Karlsson, A.; Hammarfelt, B.; Steinhauer, H.J.; Falkman, G.; Olson, N.; Nelhans, G.; Nolin, J.: Modeling uncertainty in bibliometrics and information retrieval : an information fusion approach (2015) 0.03
    0.025529573 = product of:
      0.0893535 = sum of:
        0.08165773 = weight(_text_:g in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08165773 = score(doc=1696,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.5868668 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
        0.007695774 = weight(_text_:a in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007695774 = score(doc=1696,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Type
    a
  18. Visscher, A. De: Response to "remarks on the paper by a. De Visscher, 'what does the g-index really measure?' " (2013) 0.03
    0.025347052 = product of:
      0.08871468 = sum of:
        0.08000791 = weight(_text_:g in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08000791 = score(doc=1052,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
        0.008706774 = weight(_text_:a in 1052) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008706774 = score(doc=1052,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1052, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1052)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Visscher, A. De: What does the g-index really measure?. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2290-2293.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  19. Prathap, G.: Measures for impact, consistency, and the h- and g-indices (2014) 0.03
    0.025347052 = product of:
      0.08871468 = sum of:
        0.08000791 = weight(_text_:g in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08000791 = score(doc=1250,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.5750097 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
        0.008706774 = weight(_text_:a in 1250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008706774 = score(doc=1250,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1250, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1250)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    An altogether different view on the properties of a good performance measure than that given in Egghe (2012) is offered. Egghe argued that a good impact measure should reward nonconsistency; that is, the more citations over papers are unequally distributed, the higher the impact should be. Here, a quantitative proxy for consistency is offered, and it is shown that as consistency increases, the ideal performance measure, which is sensitive to changes in consistency, should increase, reflecting this virtue.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a
  20. Egghe, L.: ¬The influence of transformations on the h-index and the g-index (2008) 0.03
    0.025272988 = product of:
      0.08845545 = sum of:
        0.080837026 = weight(_text_:g in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080837026 = score(doc=1881,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.5809685 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
        0.0076184273 = weight(_text_:a in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0076184273 = score(doc=1881,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    In a previous article, we introduced a general transformation on sources and one on items in an arbitrary information production process (IPP). In this article, we investigate the influence of these transformations on the h-index and on the g-index. General formulae that describe this influence are presented. These are applied to the case that the size-frequency function is Lotkaian (i.e., is a decreasing power function). We further show that the h-index of the transformed IPP belongs to the interval bounded by the two transformations of the h-index of the original IPP, and we also show that this property is not true for the g-index.
    Object
    g-index
    Type
    a

Authors

Types

  • a 1230
  • el 13
  • m 12
  • s 9
  • b 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…