Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  1. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02
    0.01845152 = product of:
      0.03690304 = sum of:
        0.03690304 = product of:
          0.07380608 = sum of:
            0.07380608 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07380608 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  2. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.01
    0.012301013 = product of:
      0.024602026 = sum of:
        0.024602026 = product of:
          0.04920405 = sum of:
            0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04920405 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  3. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? : a comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine (2008) 0.01
    0.00950188 = product of:
      0.01900376 = sum of:
        0.01900376 = product of:
          0.03800752 = sum of:
            0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03800752 = score(doc=1608,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 1608, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1608)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In this study, we examined empirical results on the h index and its most important variants in order to determine whether the variants developed are associated with an incremental contribution for evaluation purposes. The results of a factor analysis using bibliographic data on postdoctoral researchers in biomedicine indicate that regarding the h index and its variants, we are dealing with two types of indices that load on one factor each. One type describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and gives the number of papers in that core. The other type of indices describes the impact of the papers in the core. Because an index for evaluative purposes is a useful yardstick for comparison among scientists if the index corresponds strongly with peer assessments, we calculated a logistic regression analysis with the two factors resulting from the factor analysis as independent variables and peer assessment of the postdoctoral researchers as the dependent variable. The results of the regression analysis show that peer assessments can be predicted better using the factor impact of the productive core than using the factor quantity of the productive core.
  4. 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) 0.01
    0.00922576 = product of:
      0.01845152 = sum of:
        0.01845152 = product of:
          0.03690304 = sum of:
            0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03690304 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:44:17
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.01
    0.00922576 = product of:
      0.01845152 = sum of:
        0.01845152 = product of:
          0.03690304 = sum of:
            0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03690304 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
  6. 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
    0.0076881335 = product of:
      0.015376267 = sum of:
        0.015376267 = product of:
          0.030752534 = sum of:
            0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030752534 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = 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