-
Rostaing, H.; Barts, N.; Léveillé, V.: Bibliometrics: representation instrument of the multidisciplinary positioning of a scientific area : Implementation for an Advisory Scientific Committee (2007)
0.04
0.043878466 = product of:
0.07313077 = sum of:
0.039324045 = weight(_text_:u in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039324045 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = 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)
0.011319133 = product of:
0.022638267 = sum of:
0.022638267 = weight(_text_:h in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022638267 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.21959636 = fieldWeight in 1144, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1144)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.022487596 = product of:
0.04497519 = sum of:
0.04497519 = weight(_text_:22 in 1144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04497519 = score(doc=1144,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = 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)
0.6 = coord(3/5)
- 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
-
¬The Web of knowledge : Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (2000)
0.03
0.033465866 = product of:
0.08366466 = sum of:
0.06951574 = weight(_text_:u in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06951574 = score(doc=461,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.5116319 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
0.014148918 = product of:
0.028297836 = sum of:
0.028297836 = weight(_text_:h in 461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028297836 = score(doc=461,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 461, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=461)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Editor
- Cronin, B. u. H.B. Atkins
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Knowledge organization 28(2001) no.1, S.45-46 (M.J. López Huertas u. E. Jiménez-Contreras); Password 2002, H.3, S.14-19 (W.G. Stock)
-
Nah, I.W.; Kang, D.-S.; Lee, D.-H.; Chung, Y.-C.: ¬A bibliometric evaluation of research performance in different subject categories (2009)
0.03
0.026738355 = product of:
0.06684589 = sum of:
0.009904242 = product of:
0.019808484 = sum of:
0.019808484 = weight(_text_:h in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019808484 = score(doc=2772,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.19214681 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.056941643 = product of:
0.11388329 = sum of:
0.11388329 = weight(_text_:lee in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11388329 = score(doc=2772,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24718519 = queryWeight, product of:
5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.4607205 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
-
Hayer, L.: Lazarsfeld zitiert : eine bibliometrische Analyse (2008)
0.03
0.02576656 = product of:
0.0644164 = sum of:
0.050361652 = sum of:
0.014148918 = weight(_text_:h in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014148918 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036212735 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
0.014054747 = product of:
0.028109495 = sum of:
0.028109495 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028109495 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 22. 6.2008 12:54:12
- Source
- Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.2, S.14-20
-
Kim, P.J.; Lee, J.Y.; Park, J.-H.: Developing a new collection-evaluation method : mapping and the user-side h-index (2009)
0.03
0.025217602 = product of:
0.063044004 = sum of:
0.022371402 = product of:
0.044742804 = sum of:
0.044742804 = weight(_text_:h in 3171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044742804 = score(doc=3171,freq=20.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.4340154 = fieldWeight in 3171, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0406726 = product of:
0.0813452 = sum of:
0.0813452 = weight(_text_:lee in 3171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0813452 = score(doc=3171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24718519 = queryWeight, product of:
5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.32908607 = fieldWeight in 3171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This study proposes a new visualization method and index for collection evaluation. Specifically, it develops a network-based mapping technique and a user-focused Hirsch index (user-side h-index) given the lack of previous studies on collection evaluation methods that have used the h-index. A user-side h-index is developed and compared with previous indices (use factor, difference of percentages, collection-side h-index) that represent the strengths of the subject classes of a library collection. The mapping procedure includes the subject-usage profiling of 63 subject classes and collection-usage map generations through the pathfinder network algorithm. Cluster analyses are then conducted upon the pathfinder network to generate 5 large and 14 small clusters. The nodes represent the strengths of the subject-class usages reflected by the user-side h-index. The user-side h-index was found to have advantages (e.g., better demonstrating the real utility of each subject class) over the other indices. It also can more clearly distinguish the strengths between the subject classes than can collection-side h-index. These results may help to identify actual usage and strengths of subject classes in library collections through visualized maps. This may be a useful rationale for the establishment of the collection-development plan.
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.; Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: ¬A relation between h-index and impact factor in the power-law model (2009)
0.02
0.022791084 = product of:
0.113955416 = sum of:
0.113955416 = sum of:
0.032015346 = weight(_text_:h in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032015346 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.31055614 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
0.08194007 = weight(_text_:l in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08194007 = score(doc=6759,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.49683157 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.: Dynamic h-index : the Hirsch index in function of time (2007)
0.02
0.021712217 = product of:
0.10856108 = sum of:
0.10856108 = sum of:
0.050620705 = weight(_text_:h in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050620705 = score(doc=147,freq=10.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.4910324 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
0.05794038 = weight(_text_:l in 147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05794038 = score(doc=147,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.35131297 = fieldWeight in 147, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=147)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- When there are a group of articles and the present time is fixed we can determine the unique number h being the number of articles that received h or more citations while the other articles received a number of citations which is not larger than h. In this article, the time dependence of the h-index is determined. This is important to describe the expected career evolution of a scientist's work or of a journal's production in a fixed year.
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007)
0.02
0.021344937 = product of:
0.10672469 = sum of:
0.10672469 = sum of:
0.056026854 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056026854 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050697833 = score(doc=477,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 477, 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=477)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Jorge Hirsch recently proposed the h index to quantify the research output of individual scientists. The new index has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific community. The claim that the h index in a single number provides a good representation of the scientific lifetime achievement of a scientist as well as the (supposed) simple calculation of the h index using common literature databases lead to the danger of improper use of the index. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the h index and summarize the studies on the convergent validity of this index. We also introduce corrections and complements as well as single-number alternatives to the h index.
- Object
- H-Index
-
Jeong, S.; Lee, S.; Kim, H.-G.: Are you an invited speaker? : a bibliometric analysis of elite groups for scholarly events in bioinformatics (2009)
0.02
0.020270959 = product of:
0.050677396 = sum of:
0.010004795 = product of:
0.02000959 = sum of:
0.02000959 = weight(_text_:h in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02000959 = score(doc=2847,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.1940976 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.0406726 = product of:
0.0813452 = sum of:
0.0813452 = weight(_text_:lee in 2847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0813452 = score(doc=2847,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24718519 = queryWeight, product of:
5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.32908607 = fieldWeight in 2847, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.957094 = idf(docFreq=310, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2847)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Participating in scholarly events (e.g., conferences, workshops, etc.) as an elite-group member such as an organizing committee chair or member, program committee chair or member, session chair, invited speaker, or award winner is beneficial to a researcher's career development. The objective of this study is to investigate whether elite-group membership for scholarly events is representative of scholars' prominence, and which elite group is the most prestigious. We collected data about 15 global (excluding regional) bioinformatics scholarly events held in 2007. We sampled (via stratified random sampling) participants from elite groups in each event. Then, bibliometric indicators (total citations and h index) of seven elite groups and a non-elite group, consisting of authors who submitted at least one paper to an event but were not included in any elite group, were observed using the Scopus Citation Tracker. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to examine the differences among the eight groups. Multiple comparison tests (Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner) were conducted as follow-up procedures. The experimental results reveal that scholars in an elite group have better performance in bibliometric indicators than do others. Among the elite groups, the invited speaker group has statistically significantly the best performance while the other elite-group types are not significantly distinguishable. From this analysis, we confirm that elite-group membership in scholarly events, at least in the field of bioinformatics, can be utilized as an alternative marker for a scholar's prominence, with invited speaker being the most important prominence indicator among the elite groups.
-
Egghe, L.: ¬The influence of transformations on the h-index and the g-index (2008)
0.02
0.01899819 = product of:
0.094990954 = sum of:
0.094990954 = sum of:
0.044293117 = weight(_text_:h in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044293117 = score(doc=1881,freq=10.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.42965335 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050697833 = score(doc=1881,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 1881, 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=1881)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
- h-index
-
Raan, A.F.J. van: Scaling rules in the science system : influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of research groups (2008)
0.02
0.018543491 = product of:
0.046358727 = sum of:
0.029493032 = weight(_text_:u in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029493032 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13587062 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 2758, 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=2758)
0.016865695 = product of:
0.03373139 = sum of:
0.03373139 = weight(_text_:22 in 2758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373139 = score(doc=2758,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2758, 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=2758)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:03:12
- Footnote
- Vgl. auch: Costas, R., M. Bordons u. T.N. van Leeuwen u.a.: Scaling rules in the science system: Influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.740-753.
-
Egghe, L.; Ravichandra Rao, I.K.: Study of different h-indices for groups of authors (2008)
0.02
0.018295659 = product of:
0.091478296 = sum of:
0.091478296 = sum of:
0.048023015 = weight(_text_:h in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048023015 = score(doc=1878,freq=16.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.4658342 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345528 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1878, 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=1878)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.: Mathematical study of h-index sequences (2009)
0.02
0.018246343 = product of:
0.09123172 = sum of:
0.09123172 = sum of:
0.04001918 = weight(_text_:h in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04001918 = score(doc=4217,freq=16.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.3881952 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
0.05121254 = weight(_text_:l in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05121254 = score(doc=4217,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang's h-sequences are above the "normal" ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author.
- Object
- h-index
-
Schreiber, M.: ¬An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index (2008)
0.02
0.017445477 = product of:
0.08722738 = sum of:
0.08722738 = sum of:
0.051014647 = weight(_text_:h in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051014647 = score(doc=1968,freq=26.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.4948537 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036212735 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 1968, 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=1968)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. To take into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations, L. Egghe (2006a) proposed the g-index as an improvement of the h-index. I have worked out 26 practical cases of physicists from the Institute of Physics at Chemnitz University of Technology, and compare the h and g values in this study. It is demonstrated that the g-index discriminates better between different citation patterns. This also can be achieved by evaluating B.H. Jin's (2006) A-index, which reflects the average number of citations in the h-core, and interpreting it in conjunction with the h-index. h and A can be combined into the R-index to measure the h-core's citation intensity. I also have determined the A and R values for the 26 datasets. For a better comparison, I utilize interpolated indices. The correlations between the various indices as well as with the total number of papers and the highest citation counts are discussed. The largest Pearson correlation coefficient is found between g and R. Although the correlation between g and h is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either h or g.
- Object
- h-Index
-
Egghe, L.: Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship (2008)
0.02
0.017008886 = product of:
0.08504443 = sum of:
0.08504443 = sum of:
0.041589152 = weight(_text_:h in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041589152 = score(doc=2004,freq=12.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.40342426 = fieldWeight in 2004, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2004)
0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 2004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345528 = score(doc=2004,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 2004, 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=2004)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- 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
- h-index
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.D.: Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? (2009)
0.02
0.016570097 = product of:
0.082850486 = sum of:
0.082850486 = sum of:
0.031637944 = weight(_text_:h in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031637944 = score(doc=2861,freq=10.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30689526 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
0.05121254 = weight(_text_:l in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05121254 = score(doc=2861,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.31051973 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs number of publications (for the quantity dimension) and total citation counts (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between number of publications and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between total citation counts and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.
- Object
- h-Index
-
Egghe, L.; Ravichandra Rao, I.K.: ¬The influence of the broadness of a query of a topic on its h-index : models and examples of the h-index of n-grams (2008)
0.02
0.016191108 = product of:
0.080955535 = sum of:
0.080955535 = sum of:
0.044742804 = weight(_text_:h in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044742804 = score(doc=2009,freq=20.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.4340154 = fieldWeight in 2009, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2009)
0.036212735 = weight(_text_:l in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036212735 = score(doc=2009,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 2009, 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=2009)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- The article studies the influence of the query formulation of a topic on its h-index. In order to generate pure random sets of documents, we used N-grams (N variable) to measure this influence: strings of zeros, truncated at the end. The used databases are WoS and Scopus. The formula h=T**1/alpha, proved in Egghe and Rousseau (2006) where T is the number of retrieved documents and is Lotka's exponent, is confirmed being a concavely increasing function of T. We also give a formula for the relation between h and N the length of the N-gram: h=D10**(-N/alpha) where D is a constant, a convexly decreasing function, which is found in our experiments. Nonlinear regression on h=T**1/alpha gives an estimation of , which can then be used to estimate the h-index of the entire database (Web of Science [WoS] and Scopus): h=S**1/alpha, , where S is the total number of documents in the database.
- Object
- h-index
-
Egghe, L.: ¬A rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and a comparison with the impact factor rank-order distribution (2009)
0.02
0.015742252 = product of:
0.07871126 = sum of:
0.07871126 = sum of:
0.028013427 = weight(_text_:h in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028013427 = score(doc=3124,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.27173662 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
0.050697833 = weight(_text_:l in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050697833 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.30739886 = fieldWeight in 3124, 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=3124)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- We present a rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and prove that it is a power law (hence a straight line in the log-log scale). This is confirmed by experimental data of Pyykkö and by data produced in this article on 206 mathematics journals. This distribution is of a completely different nature than the impact factor (IF) rank-order distribution which (as proved in a previous article) is S-shaped. This is also confirmed by our example. Only in the log-log scale of the h-index distribution do we notice a concave deviation of the straight line for higher ranks. This phenomenon is discussed.
- Object
- h-index
-
H-Index auch im Web of Science (2008)
0.02
0.015730564 = product of:
0.039326407 = sum of:
0.02246071 = product of:
0.04492142 = sum of:
0.04492142 = weight(_text_:h in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04492142 = score(doc=590,freq=14.0), product of:
0.10309036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.435748 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.016865695 = product of:
0.03373139 = sum of:
0.03373139 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373139 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Content
- "Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."
- Date
- 6. 4.2008 19:04:22
- Object
- H-Index
- Source
- Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 61(2008) H.1, S.124-125
-
Leydesdorff, L.: Can networks of journal-journal citations be used as indicators of change in the social sciences? (2003)
0.02
0.015437335 = product of:
0.038593337 = sum of:
0.02172764 = product of:
0.04345528 = sum of:
0.04345528 = weight(_text_:l in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04345528 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16492525 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.016865695 = product of:
0.03373139 = sum of:
0.03373139 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03373139 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14530581 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041494254 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 6.11.2005 19:02:22
