-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.05
0.046204112 = product of:
0.092408225 = sum of:
0.092408225 = sum of:
0.055969246 = weight(_text_:2003 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055969246 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
0.044824958 = queryNorm
0.28770202 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.03643898 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03643898 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044824958 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
Zhou, Q.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The normalization of occurrence and co-occurrence matrices in bibliometrics using Cosine similarities and Ochiai coefficients (2016)
0.01
0.013992311 = product of:
0.027984623 = sum of:
0.027984623 = product of:
0.055969246 = sum of:
0.055969246 = weight(_text_:2003 in 3161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055969246 = score(doc=3161,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
0.044824958 = queryNorm
0.28770202 = fieldWeight in 3161, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3161)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We prove that Ochiai similarity of the co-occurrence matrix is equal to cosine similarity in the underlying occurrence matrix. Neither the cosine nor the Pearson correlation should be used for the normalization of co-occurrence matrices because the similarity is then normalized twice, and therefore overestimated; the Ochiai coefficient can be used instead. Results are shown using a small matrix (5 cases, 4 variables) for didactic reasons, and also Ahlgren et?al.'s (2003) co-occurrence matrix of 24 authors in library and information sciences. The overestimation is shown numerically and will be illustrated using multidimensional scaling and cluster dendograms. If the occurrence matrix is not available (such as in internet research or author cocitation analysis) using Ochiai for the normalization is preferable to using the cosine.
-
Shelton, R.D.; Leydesdorff, L.: Publish or patent : bibliometric evidence for empirical trade-offs in national funding strategies (2012)
0.01
0.01166026 = product of:
0.02332052 = sum of:
0.02332052 = product of:
0.04664104 = sum of:
0.04664104 = weight(_text_:2003 in 70) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04664104 = score(doc=70,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
0.044824958 = queryNorm
0.2397517 = fieldWeight in 70, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=70)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Multivariate linear regression models suggest a trade-off in allocations of national research and development (R&D). Government funding and spending in the higher education sector encourage publications as a long-term research benefit. Conversely, other components such as industrial funding and spending in the business sector encourage patenting. Our results help explain why the United States trails the European Union in publications: The focus in the United States is on industrial funding-some 70% of its total R&D investment. Likewise, our results also help explain why the European Union trails the United States in patenting, since its focus on government funding is less effective than industrial funding in predicting triadic patenting. Government funding contributes negatively to patenting in a multiple regression, and this relationship is significant in the case of triadic patenting. We provide new forecasts about the relationships of the United States, the European Union, and China for publishing; these results suggest much later dates for changes than previous forecasts because Chinese growth has been slowing down since 2003. Models for individual countries might be more successful than regression models whose parameters are averaged over a set of countries because nations can be expected to differ historically in terms of the institutional arrangements and funding schemes.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011)
0.01
0.007591454 = product of:
0.015182908 = sum of:
0.015182908 = product of:
0.030365815 = sum of:
0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030365815 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044824958 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
Hellsten, I.; Leydesdorff, L.: ¬The construction of interdisciplinarity : the development of the knowledge base and programmatic focus of the journal Climatic Change, 1977-2013 (2016)
0.01
0.007591454 = product of:
0.015182908 = sum of:
0.015182908 = product of:
0.030365815 = sum of:
0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030365815 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044824958 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 24. 8.2016 17:53:22
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Johnson, M.W.; Ivanova, I.: Toward a calculus of redundancy : signification, codification, and anticipation in cultural evolution (2018)
0.01
0.007591454 = product of:
0.015182908 = sum of:
0.015182908 = product of:
0.030365815 = sum of:
0.030365815 = weight(_text_:22 in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030365815 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.044824958 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4463, 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=4463)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 29. 9.2018 11:22:09
