Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Eck, N.J. van"
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Olensky, M.; Schmidt, M.; Eck, N.J. van: Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the Web of science (2016) 0.00 
    0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=3130,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The results of bibliometric studies provided by bibliometric research groups, for example, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) and the Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ), are often used in the process of research assessment. Their databases use Web of Science (WoS) citation data, which they match according to their own matching algorithms-in the case of CWTS for standard usage in their studies and in the case of iFQ on an experimental basis. Because the problem of nonmatched citations in the WoS persists due to inaccuracies in the references or inaccuracies introduced in the data extraction process, it is important to ascertain how well these inaccuracies are rectified in these citation matching algorithms. This article evaluates the algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the WoS in a quantitative and a qualitative analysis. The analysis builds upon the method and the manually verified corpus of a previous study. The algorithm of CWTS performs best, closely followed by that of iFQ. The WoS algorithm still performs quite well (F1 score: 96.41%), but shows deficits in matching references containing inaccuracies. An additional problem is posed by incorrectly provided cited reference information in source articles by the WoS.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.10, S.2550-2564
  2. 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 
    0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 4214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=4214,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4214, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4214)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    We investigated the similarities of pairs of articles that are cocited at the different cocitation levels of the journal, article, section, paragraph, sentence, and bracket. Our results indicate that textual similarity, intellectual overlap (shared references), author overlap (shared authors), proximity in publication time all rise monotonically as the cocitation level gets lower (from journal to bracket). While the main gain in similarity happens when moving from journal to article cocitation, all level changes entail an increase in similarity, especially section to paragraph and paragraph to sentence/bracket levels. We compared the results from four journals over the years 2010-2015: Cell, the European Journal of Operational Research, Physics Letters B, and Research Policy, with consistent general outcomes and some interesting differences. Our findings motivate the use of granular cocitation information as defined by meaningful units of text, with implications for, among others, the elaboration of maps of science and the retrieval of scholarly literature.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.4, S.600-609
  3. Eck, N.J. van; Waltman, L.: Appropriate similarity measures for author co-citation analysis (2008) 0.00 
    0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 2008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=2008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2008)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.10, S.1653-1661
  4. Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The relation between eigenfactor, audience factor, and influence weight (2010) 0.00 
    0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 3596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=3596,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3596, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3596)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1476-1486
  5. Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van; Raan, A.F.J. van: Universality of citation distributions revisited (2012) 0.00 
    0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 4963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=4963,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4963, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4963)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.72-77
  6. 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 
    0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 4112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=4112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4112)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2405-2416
  7. Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The inconsistency of the h-index : the case of web accessibility in Western European countries (2012) 0.00 
    0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.2, S.406-415
  8. 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 
    0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=511,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2378-2392
  9. 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 
    0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.12, S.2405-2418

Authors

Years