Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Eck, N.J. van"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The inconsistency of the h-index : the case of web accessibility in Western European countries (2012) 0.02 
    0.01942933 = product of:
  0.097146645 = sum of:
    0.097146645 = sum of:
      0.053691365 = weight(_text_:h in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053691365 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.5208185 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04345528 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041494254 = queryNorm
          0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis), the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.
    Object
    h-index
  2. Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The relation between eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight (2010) 0.01 
    0.0050697834 = product of:
  0.025348917 = sum of:
    0.025348917 = product of:
      0.050697833 = sum of:
        0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 3596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050697833 = score(doc=3596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 3596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  3. Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van; Raan, A.F.J. van: Universality of citation distributions revisited (2012) 0.01 
    0.0050697834 = product of:
  0.025348917 = sum of:
    0.025348917 = product of:
      0.050697833 = sum of:
        0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 4963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050697833 = score(doc=4963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 4963, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  4. Eck, N.J. van; Waltman, L.; Dekker, R.; Berg, J. van den: ¬A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping : multidimensional scaling and VOS (2010) 0.00 
    0.0043455283 = product of:
  0.02172764 = sum of:
    0.02172764 = product of:
      0.04345528 = sum of:
        0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 4112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04345528 = score(doc=4112,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 4112, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4112)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  5. Colavizza, G.; Boyack, K.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Waltman, L.: ¬The closer the better : similarity of publication pairs at different cocitation levels (2018) 0.00 
    0.0043455283 = product of:
  0.02172764 = sum of:
    0.02172764 = product of:
      0.04345528 = sum of:
        0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04345528 = score(doc=4214,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  6. Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science : keyword maps in Google scholar citations (2012) 0.00 
    0.0036212734 = product of:
  0.018106367 = sum of:
    0.018106367 = product of:
      0.036212735 = sum of:
        0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036212735 = score(doc=511,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  7. Waltman, L.; Calero-Medina, C.; Kosten, J.; Noyons, E.C.M.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van; Visser, M.S.; Wouters, P.: ¬The Leiden ranking 2011/2012 : data collection, indicators, and interpretation (2012) 0.00 
    0.0036212734 = product of:
  0.018106367 = sum of:
    0.018106367 = product of:
      0.036212735 = sum of:
        0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036212735 = score(doc=514,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041494254 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Authors