-
Herb, U.; Beucke, D.: ¬Die Zukunft der Impact-Messung : Social Media, Nutzung und Zitate im World Wide Web (2013)
0.05
0.046357542 = product of:
0.23178771 = sum of:
0.23178771 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.23178771 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.3093153 = queryWeight, product of:
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Content
- Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.
-
D'Angelo, C.A.; Giuffrida, C.; Abramo, G.: ¬A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments (2011)
0.04
0.040532265 = product of:
0.10133066 = sum of:
0.086501256 = product of:
0.17300251 = sum of:
0.17300251 = weight(_text_:exercises in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17300251 = score(doc=4190,freq=4.0), product of:
0.25947425 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.6667425 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.014829405 = product of:
0.02965881 = sum of:
0.02965881 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02965881 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- National exercises for the evaluation of research activity by universities are becoming regular practice in ever more countries. These exercises have mainly been conducted through the application of peer-review methods. Bibliometrics has not been able to offer a valid large-scale alternative because of almost overwhelming difficulties in identifying the true author of each publication. We will address this problem by presenting a heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometric datasets for large-scale research assessments. The application proposed concerns the Italian university system, comprising 80 universities and a research staff of over 60,000 scientists. The key advantage of the proposed approach is the ease of implementation. The algorithms are of practical application and have considerably better scalability and expandability properties than state-of-the-art unsupervised approaches. Moreover, the performance in terms of precision and recall, which can be further improved, seems thoroughly adequate for the typical needs of large-scale bibliometric research assessments.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 13:06:52
-
Haiqi, Z.: ¬The literature of Qigong : publication patterns and subject headings (1997)
0.04
0.035464346 = product of:
0.088660866 = sum of:
0.071359895 = product of:
0.14271979 = sum of:
0.14271979 = weight(_text_:exercises in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14271979 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25947425 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.5500345 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.017300973 = product of:
0.034601945 = sum of:
0.034601945 = weight(_text_:22 in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034601945 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a bibliometric study of the literature of Qigong: a relaxation technique used to teach patients to control their heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and other involuntary functions through controlles breathing. All articles indexed in the MEDLINE CD-ROM database, between 1965 and 1995 were identified using 'breathing exercises' MeSH term. The articles were analyzed for geographical and language distribution and a ranking exercise enabled a core list of periodicals to be identified. In addition, the study shed light on the changing frequency of the MeSH terms and evaluated the research areas by measuring the information from these respective MeSH headings
- Source
- International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.3, S.38-44
-
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
-
Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015)
0.02
0.016769426 = product of:
0.08384713 = sum of:
0.08384713 = sum of:
0.05913145 = weight(_text_:etc in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05913145 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
0.024715675 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024715675 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze the disciplinary orientation of scientific publications that were mentioned on different social media platforms, focussing on their differences and similarities with citation counts. Design/methodology/approach - Social media metrics and readership counts, associated with 500,216 publications and their citation data from the Web of Science database, were collected from Altmetric.com and Mendeley. Results are presented through descriptive statistical analyses together with science maps generated with VOSviewer. Findings - The results confirm Mendeley as the most prevalent social media source with similar characteristics to citations in their distribution across fields and their density in average values per publication. The humanities, natural sciences, and engineering disciplines have a much lower presence of social media metrics. Twitter has a stronger focus on general medicine and social sciences. Other sources (blog, Facebook, Google+, and news media mentions) are more prominent in regards to multidisciplinary journals. Originality/value - This paper reinforces the relevance of Mendeley as a social media source for analytical purposes from a disciplinary perspective, being particularly relevant for the social sciences (together with Twitter). Key implications for the use of social media metrics on the evaluation of research performance (e.g. the concentration of some social media metrics, such as blogs, news items, etc., around multidisciplinary journals) are identified.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Hu, X.: Loads of special authorship functions : linear growth in the percentage of "equal first authors" and corresponding authors (2009)
0.02
0.016310833 = product of:
0.08155417 = sum of:
0.08155417 = product of:
0.16310833 = sum of:
0.16310833 = weight(_text_:exercises in 3159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16310833 = score(doc=3159,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25947425 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.62861085 = fieldWeight in 3159, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3159)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- We show that between 1999 and 2008 the percentage of articles with more than one corresponding author or with several authors that contributed equally, leading to so-called equal first authors, has steadily been on the rise. Increasing numbers of corresponding authors and equally contributing authors may lead to increased stress on teamwork if not properly acknowledged in research evaluation exercises.
-
Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C.A.: ¬A decision support system for public research organizations participating in national research assessment exercises (2009)
0.01
0.014416876 = product of:
0.07208438 = sum of:
0.07208438 = product of:
0.14416876 = sum of:
0.14416876 = weight(_text_:exercises in 3123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14416876 = score(doc=3123,freq=4.0), product of:
0.25947425 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.55561876 = fieldWeight in 3123, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3123)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- We are witnessing a rapid trend toward the adoption of exercises for evaluation of national research systems, generally based on peer review. They respond to two main needs: stimulating higher efficiency in research activities by public laboratories, and realizing better allocative efficiency in government funding of such institutions. However, the peer review approach is typified by several limitations that raise doubts for the achievement of the ultimate objectives. In particular, subjectivity of judgment, which occurs during the step of selecting research outputs to be submitted for the evaluations, risks heavily distorting both the final ratings of the organizations evaluated and the ultimate funding they receive. These distortions become ever more relevant if the evaluation is limited to small samples of the scientific production of the research institutions. The objective of the current study is to propose a quantitative methodology based on bibliometric data that would provide a reliable support for the process of selecting the best products of a laboratory, and thus limit distortions. Benefits are twofold: single research institutions can maximize the probability of receiving a fair evaluation coherent with the real quality of their research. At the same time, broader adoptions of this approach could also provide strong advantages at the macroeconomic level, since it guarantees financial allocations based on the real value of the institutions under evaluation. In this study the proposed methodology was applied to the hard science sectors of the Italian university research system for the period 2004-2006.
-
Thelwall, M.: Bibliometrics to webometrics (2009)
0.01
0.014271979 = product of:
0.071359895 = sum of:
0.071359895 = product of:
0.14271979 = sum of:
0.14271979 = weight(_text_:exercises in 4239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14271979 = score(doc=4239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25947425 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.5500345 = fieldWeight in 4239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4239)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Bibliometrics has changed out of all recognition since 1958; becoming established as a field, being taught widely in library and information science schools, and being at the core of a number of science evaluation research groups around the world. This was all made possible by the work of Eugene Garfield and his Science Citation Index. This article reviews the distance that bibliometrics has travelled since 1958 by comparing early bibliometrics with current practice, and by giving an overview of a range of recent developments, such as patent analysis, national research evaluation exercises, visualization techniques, new applications, online citation indexes, and the creation of digital libraries. Webometrics, a modern, fast-growing offshoot of bibliometrics, is reviewed in detail. Finally, future prospects are discussed with regard to both bibliometrics and webometrics.
-
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.
-
Folly, G.; Hajtman, B.; Nagy, J.I.; Ruff, I.: Some methodological problems in ranking scientists by citation analysis (1981)
0.01
0.010987563 = product of:
0.054937813 = sum of:
0.054937813 = product of:
0.10987563 = sum of:
0.10987563 = weight(_text_:problems in 3275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10987563 = score(doc=3275,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.72964144 = fieldWeight in 3275, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3275)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
-
Rousseau, R.: Journal evaluation : technical and practical issues (2002)
0.01
0.010194271 = product of:
0.05097135 = sum of:
0.05097135 = product of:
0.1019427 = sum of:
0.1019427 = weight(_text_:exercises in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1019427 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25947425 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- This essay provides an overview of journal evaluation indicators. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different indicators, together with their range of applicability. The definition of a "quality journal," different notions of impact factors, the meaning of ranking journals, and possible biases in citation databases are also discussed. Attention is given to using the journal impact in evaluation studies. The quality of a journal is a multifaceted notion. Journals can be evaluated for different purposes, and hence the results of such evaluation exercises can be quite different depending on the indicator(s) used. The impact factor, in one of its versions, is probably the most used indicator when it comes to gauging the visibility of a journal on the research front. Generalized impact factors, over periods longer than the traditional two years, are better indicators for the long-term value of a journal. As with all evaluation studies, care must be exercised when considering journal impact factors as a quality indicator. It seems best to use a whole battery of indicators (including several impact factors) and to change this group of indicators depending on the purpose of the evaluation study. Nowadays it goes without saying that special attention is paid to e-journals and specific indicators for this type of journal.
-
Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C.A.; Di Costa, F.: Testing the trade-off between productivity and quality in research activities (2009)
0.01
0.010194271 = product of:
0.05097135 = sum of:
0.05097135 = product of:
0.1019427 = sum of:
0.1019427 = weight(_text_:exercises in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1019427 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25947425 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- In recent years there has been an increasingly pressing need for the evaluation of results from public-sector research activity, particularly to permit the efficient allocation of ever scarcer resources. Many of the studies and evaluation exercises that have been conducted at the national and international levels emphasize the quality dimension of research output, while neglecting that of productivity. This work is intended to test for the possible existence of correlation between quantity and quality of scientific production and determine whether the most productive researchers are also those that achieve results that are qualitatively better than those of their colleagues. The analysis proposed refers to the entire Italian university system and is based on the observation of production in the hard sciences by more than 26,000 researchers in the period 2001-2005. The results show that the output of more-productive researchers is superior in quality than that of less-productive researchers. The relation between productivity and quality results is largely insensitive to the types of indicators or the test methods applied and also seems to differ little among the various disciplines examined.
-
Rao, I.K.: ¬The distribution of scientific productivity and social change (1978)
0.01
0.009461033 = product of:
0.047305163 = sum of:
0.047305163 = product of:
0.094610326 = sum of:
0.094610326 = weight(_text_:etc in 8) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.094610326 = score(doc=8,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.47875473 = fieldWeight in 8, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Results in the literature concerning the probability that an author publishes r articles in time t are reexamined, and it is found that a negative binomial distribution bits scientific productivity data (by the chi-squared goodness-of-fit-test) better than many other distribution such as geometric, logarithmic, zeta, cumulative advantage, etc. It is shown analytically that the nagative binomial distribution describes a pattern of scientific productivity under the 'success-breeds-success' condition in a wide variety of social circumstances
-
Torres-Salinas, D.; Gorraiz, J.; Robinson-Garcia, N.: ¬The insoluble problems of books : what does Altmetric.com have to offer? (2018)
0.01
0.009448289 = product of:
0.023620723 = sum of:
0.013734453 = product of:
0.027468907 = sum of:
0.027468907 = weight(_text_:problems in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027468907 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.18241036 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.009886269 = product of:
0.019772539 = sum of:
0.019772539 = weight(_text_:22 in 4633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019772539 = score(doc=4633,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4633, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4633)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Kretschmer, H.; Kretschmer, T.: Well-ordered collaboration structures of co-author pairs in journals (2006)
0.01
0.008362452 = product of:
0.041812256 = sum of:
0.041812256 = product of:
0.08362451 = sum of:
0.08362451 = weight(_text_:etc in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08362451 = score(doc=25,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.4231634 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- In single-authored bibliographies only single scientist distribution can be found. But in multi-authored bibliographies single scientists distribution, pairs distribution, triples distribution, etc., can be presented. Whereas regarding Lotka's law single scientists P distribution (both in single-authored and in multi-authored bibliographies) is of interest, in the future pairs P, Q distribution, triples P, Q, R distribution, etc. should be considered Starting with pair distribution, the following question arises in the present paper: Is there also any regularity or well-ordered structure for the distribution of coauthor pairs in journals in analogy to Lotka's law for the distribution of single authors? Usually, in information science "laws " or "regularities " (for example Lotka's law) are mathematical descriptions of observed data inform of functions; however explanations of these phenomena are mostly missing. By contrast, in this paper the derivation of a formula for describing the distribution of the number of co-author pairs will be presented based on wellknown regularities in socio psychology or sociology in conjunction with the Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature, as well as derivations from Lotka's law. The assumed regularities for the distribution of co-author pairs in journals could be shown in the co-authorship data (1980-1998) of the journals Science, Nature, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA and Phys Rev B Condensed Matter.
-
Nourmohammadi, H.A.; Umstätter, W.: ¬Die Verteilung der Autorenhäufigkeit in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften bei verschiedenen Themen und Ländern (2004)
0.01
0.008278403 = product of:
0.041392017 = sum of:
0.041392017 = product of:
0.082784034 = sum of:
0.082784034 = weight(_text_:etc in 2514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.082784034 = score(doc=2514,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.41891038 = fieldWeight in 2514, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2514)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Untersucht man die Verteilung der Autorenhäufigkeit in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften, hier kurz Journals Author Distri-bution (JAD) genannt indem man über mehrere Jahre die Verteilung der Häufigkeit prüft wie viele Autoren einmal, zweimal, dreimal etc. in dieser Zeitschrift erschienen, so zeigen sich charakteristische Verteilungen, die den allgemeinen Potenzgesetzen (power laws) folgen. Diese Verteilungen können als Typologie der speziellen Journale verwendet werden. Wie der Impact Factor, der Immediacy Factor oder die Halbwertzeit ist die JAD zur Kategorisierung einer Zeitschrift nützlich. Auffallend ist dabei, dass zwei Parameter, der Beginn der hyperbolischen Funktion und die Potenz in einem eher konstanten Verhältnis stehen. Den Konsequenzen dieser Beobachtung wird hier nachgegangen.
-
Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication : a Festschrift in honor of Blaise Cronin (2016)
0.01
0.008155417 = product of:
0.040777083 = sum of:
0.040777083 = product of:
0.08155417 = sum of:
0.08155417 = weight(_text_:exercises in 3801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08155417 = score(doc=3801,freq=2.0), product of:
0.25947425 = queryWeight, product of:
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.31430542 = fieldWeight in 3801, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3801)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Scientometrics have become an essential element in the practice and evaluation of science and research, including both the evaluation of individuals and national assessment exercises. This book brings together the theories that guide informetrics and scholarly communication research. It is a much needed compilation by leading scholars in the field that gathers together the theories that guide our understanding of authorship, citing, and impact
-
Nicholls, P.T.: Empirical validation of Lotka's law (1986)
0.01
0.007909016 = product of:
0.039545078 = sum of:
0.039545078 = product of:
0.079090156 = sum of:
0.079090156 = weight(_text_:22 in 5509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.079090156 = score(doc=5509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5509)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986), S.417-419
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.01
0.007909016 = product of:
0.039545078 = sum of:
0.039545078 = product of:
0.079090156 = sum of:
0.079090156 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.079090156 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Fiala, J.: Information flood : fiction and reality (1987)
0.01
0.007909016 = product of:
0.039545078 = sum of:
0.039545078 = product of:
0.079090156 = sum of:
0.079090156 = weight(_text_:22 in 1080) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.079090156 = score(doc=1080,freq=2.0), product of:
0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.036484417 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1080, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1080)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Source
- Thermochimica acta. 110(1987), S.11-22
