-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.03
0.02834487 = product of:
0.070862174 = sum of:
0.04120336 = product of:
0.08240672 = sum of:
0.08240672 = weight(_text_:problems in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08240672 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.5472311 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.02965881 = product of:
0.05931762 = sum of:
0.05931762 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05931762 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Bornmann, L.; Moya Anegón, F. de; Mutz, R.: Do universities or research institutions with a specific subject profile have an advantage or a disadvantage in institutional rankings? (2013)
0.01
0.012233125 = product of:
0.061165623 = sum of:
0.061165623 = product of:
0.12233125 = sum of:
0.12233125 = weight(_text_:exercises in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12233125 = score(doc=1109,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25947425 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.47145814 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Using data compiled for the SCImago Institutions Ranking, we look at whether the subject area type an institution (university or research-focused institution) belongs to (in terms of the fields researched) has an influence on its ranking position. We used latent class analysis to categorize institutions based on their publications in certain subject areas. Even though this categorization does not relate directly to scientific performance, our results show that it exercises an important influence on the outcome of a performance measurement: Certain subject area types of institutions have an advantage in the ranking positions when compared with others. This advantage manifests itself not only when performance is measured with an indicator that is not field-normalized but also for indicators that are field-normalized.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors : an alternative research design with policy implications (2011)
0.01
0.0059131454 = product of:
0.029565725 = sum of:
0.029565725 = product of:
0.05913145 = sum of:
0.05913145 = weight(_text_:etc in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05913145 = score(doc=4919,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Zhou, P.; Bornmann, L.: How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? : An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts (2013)
0.01
0.0059131454 = product of:
0.029565725 = sum of:
0.029565725 = product of:
0.05913145 = sum of:
0.05913145 = weight(_text_:etc in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05913145 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.00
0.003954508 = product of:
0.019772539 = sum of:
0.019772539 = product of:
0.039545078 = sum of:
0.039545078 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039545078 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, 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=1431)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Bornmann, L.: How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics : the statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers (2013)
0.00
0.002965881 = product of:
0.014829405 = sum of:
0.014829405 = product of:
0.02965881 = sum of:
0.02965881 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02965881 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 656, 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=656)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:44:17
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.00
0.002965881 = product of:
0.014829405 = sum of:
0.014829405 = product of:
0.02965881 = sum of:
0.02965881 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02965881 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
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)
0.00
0.0024715676 = product of:
0.0123578375 = sum of:
0.0123578375 = product of:
0.024715675 = sum of:
0.024715675 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024715675 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = 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)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
