Search (61 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  1. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.07 
    0.06715009 = product of:
  0.10072514 = sum of:
    0.01208026 = weight(_text_:in in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01208026 = score(doc=1431,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
    0.08864488 = sum of:
      0.032032568 = weight(_text_:science in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032032568 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
      0.056612313 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056612313 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Properties of a percentile-based rating scale needed in bibliometrics are formulated. Based on these properties, P100 was recently introduced as a new citation-rank approach (Bornmann, Leydesdorff, & Wang, 2013). In this paper, we conceptualize P100 and propose an improvement which we call P100'. Advantages and disadvantages of citation-rank indicators are noted.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1939-1943
  2. 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) 0.07 
    0.06695911 = product of:
  0.10043866 = sum of:
    0.016016312 = weight(_text_:in in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016312 = score(doc=4186,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.08442235 = sum of:
      0.04903965 = weight(_text_:science in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04903965 = score(doc=4186,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
      0.035382695 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035382695 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229
  3. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.06 
    0.05835422 = product of:
  0.08753133 = sum of:
    0.011096427 = weight(_text_:in in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011096427 = score(doc=4681,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.0764349 = sum of:
      0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03397567 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042459235 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
  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) 0.05 
    0.053872727 = product of:
  0.08080909 = sum of:
    0.014325427 = weight(_text_:in in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014325427 = score(doc=656,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
    0.06648366 = sum of:
      0.024024425 = weight(_text_:science in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024024425 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
      0.042459235 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042459235 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    According to current research in bibliometrics, percentiles (or percentile rank classes) are the most suitable method for normalizing the citation counts of individual publications in terms of the subject area, the document type, and the publication year. Up to now, bibliometric research has concerned itself primarily with the calculation of percentiles. This study suggests how percentiles (and percentile rank classes) can be analyzed meaningfully for an evaluation study. Publication sets from four universities are compared with each other to provide sample data. These suggestions take into account on the one hand the distribution of percentiles over the publications in the sets (universities here) and on the other hand concentrate on the range of publications with the highest citation impact-that is, the range that is usually of most interest in the evaluation of scientific performance.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:44:17
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.587-595
  5. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.04 
    0.044322442 = product of:
  0.13296732 = sum of:
    0.13296732 = sum of:
      0.04804885 = weight(_text_:science in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04804885 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = queryNorm
          0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.08491847 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08491847 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18290302 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052230705 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867
  6. Bornmann, L.: ¬The reception of publications by scientists in the early days of modern science (2014) 0.03 
    0.03119248 = product of:
  0.04678872 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 1509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=1509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1509, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1509)
    0.03397567 = product of:
      0.06795134 = sum of:
        0.06795134 = weight(_text_:science in 1509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06795134 = score(doc=1509,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 1509, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2160-2161
  7. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016) 0.03 
    0.03119248 = product of:
  0.04678872 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=2779,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
    0.03397567 = product of:
      0.06795134 = sum of:
        0.06795134 = weight(_text_:science in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06795134 = score(doc=2779,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
    Aid
    Web of Science
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
  8. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: Growth rates of modern science : a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015) 0.03 
    0.030087236 = product of:
  0.045130853 = sum of:
    0.015100324 = weight(_text_:in in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015100324 = score(doc=2261,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
    0.03003053 = product of:
      0.06006106 = sum of:
        0.06006106 = weight(_text_:science in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06006106 = score(doc=2261,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.4365477 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Many studies (in information science) have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we reexamine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (a) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (b) analyze the data across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with an advanced statistical technique-segmented regression analysis-which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (a) the number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (b) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three essential growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars, and 8 to 9% to 2010.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2215-2222
  9. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010) 0.03 
    0.025599834 = product of:
  0.03839975 = sum of:
    0.016016312 = weight(_text_:in in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016312 = score(doc=3998,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
    0.022383438 = product of:
      0.044766877 = sum of:
        0.044766877 = weight(_text_:science in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044766877 = score(doc=3998,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2061-20690
  10. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.03 
    0.025599834 = product of:
  0.03839975 = sum of:
    0.016016312 = weight(_text_:in in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016312 = score(doc=3231,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.022383438 = product of:
      0.044766877 = sum of:
        0.044766877 = weight(_text_:science in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044766877 = score(doc=3231,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3095-3100
  11. Bornmann, L.: Is there currently a scientific revolution in Scientometrics? (2014) 0.02 
    0.024558317 = product of:
  0.036837474 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
    0.024024425 = product of:
      0.04804885 = sum of:
        0.04804885 = weight(_text_:science in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04804885 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.3, S.647-648
  12. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors : an alternative research design with policy implications (2011) 0.02 
    0.024339002 = product of:
  0.0365085 = sum of:
    0.014125061 = weight(_text_:in in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125061 = score(doc=4919,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
    0.022383438 = product of:
      0.044766877 = sum of:
        0.044766877 = weight(_text_:science in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044766877 = score(doc=4919,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2133-2146
  13. Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013) 0.02 
    0.023946881 = product of:
  0.035920322 = sum of:
    0.009060195 = weight(_text_:in in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009060195 = score(doc=1108,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
    0.026860125 = product of:
      0.05372025 = sum of:
        0.05372025 = weight(_text_:science in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05372025 = score(doc=1108,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2299-2309
  14. 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) 0.02 
    0.023640469 = product of:
  0.035460703 = sum of:
    0.013077264 = weight(_text_:in in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013077264 = score(doc=532,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18406484 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
    0.022383438 = product of:
      0.044766877 = sum of:
        0.044766877 = weight(_text_:science in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044766877 = score(doc=532,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Aid
    Science Citation Index
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.96-107
  15. Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: ¬The Anna Karenina principle : a way of thinking about success in science (2012) 0.02 
    0.02276361 = product of:
  0.034145415 = sum of:
    0.014125061 = weight(_text_:in in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125061 = score(doc=449,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 449, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=449)
    0.020020355 = product of:
      0.04004071 = sum of:
        0.04004071 = weight(_text_:science in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04004071 = score(doc=449,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 449, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=449)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The first sentence of Leo Tolstoy's (1875-1877/2001) novel Anna Karenina is: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Here, Tolstoy means that for a family to be happy, several key aspects must be given (e.g., good health of all family members, acceptable financial security, and mutual affection). If there is a deficiency in any one or more of these key aspects, the family will be unhappy. In this article, we introduce the Anna Karenina principle as a way of thinking about success in science in three central areas in (modern) science: (a) peer review of research grant proposals and manuscripts (money and journal space as scarce resources), (b) citation of publications (reception as a scarce resource), and (c) new scientific discoveries (recognition as a scarce resource). If resources are scarce at the highly competitive research front (journal space, funds, reception, and recognition), there can be success only when several key prerequisites for the allocation of the resources are fulfilled. If any one of these prerequisites is not fulfilled, the grant proposal, manuscript submission, the published paper, or the discovery will not be successful.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.2037-2051
  16. Bornmann, L.: Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review (2015) 0.02 
    0.022412544 = product of:
  0.033618815 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 2328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=2328,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2328, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2328)
    0.020805765 = product of:
      0.04161153 = sum of:
        0.04161153 = weight(_text_:science in 2328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04161153 = score(doc=2328,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 2328, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a postpublication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the interrater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on about 100,000 papers with recommendations from faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies that have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also associated with higher performing papers.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2415-2426
  17. Bornmann, L.: Complex tasks and simple solutions : the use of heuristics in the evaluation of research (2015) 0.02 
    0.020465266 = product of:
  0.030697897 = sum of:
    0.010677542 = weight(_text_:in in 8911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010677542 = score(doc=8911,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 8911, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8911)
    0.020020355 = product of:
      0.04004071 = sum of:
        0.04004071 = weight(_text_:science in 8911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04004071 = score(doc=8911,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 8911, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8911)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.8, S.1738-1739
  18. Bornmann, L.; Thor, A.; Marx, W.; Schier, H.: ¬The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences : an exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute (2016) 0.02 
    0.020115227 = product of:
  0.03017284 = sum of:
    0.016016312 = weight(_text_:in in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016016312 = score(doc=3160,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
    0.014156529 = product of:
      0.028313057 = sum of:
        0.028313057 = weight(_text_:science in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028313057 = score(doc=3160,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In the humanities and social sciences, bibliometric methods for the assessment of research performance are (so far) less common. This study uses a concrete example in an attempt to evaluate a research institute from the area of social sciences and humanities with the help of data from Google Scholar (GS). In order to use GS for a bibliometric study, we developed procedures for the normalization of citation impact, building on the procedures of classical bibliometrics. In order to test the convergent validity of the normalized citation impact scores, we calculated normalized scores for a subset of the publications based on data from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. Even if scores calculated with the help of GS and the WoS/Scopus are not identical for the different publication types (considered here), they are so similar that they result in the same assessment of the institute investigated in this study: For example, the institute's papers whose journals are covered in the WoS are cited at about an average rate (compared with the other papers in the journals).
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.11, S.2778-2789
  19. Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? : a new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing (2011) 0.02 
    0.019867256 = product of:
  0.029800884 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=4767,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
    0.016987834 = product of:
      0.03397567 = sum of:
        0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03397567 = score(doc=4767,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The methods presented in this paper allow for a statistical analysis revealing centers of excellence around the world using programs that are freely available. Based on Web of Science data (a fee-based database), field-specific excellence can be identified in cities where highly cited papers were published more frequently than can be expected. Compared to the mapping approaches published hitherto, our approach is more analytically oriented by allowing the assessment of an observed number of excellent papers for a city against the expected number. Top performers in output are cities in which authors are located who publish a statistically significant higher number of highly cited papers than can be expected for these cities. As sample data for physics, chemistry, and psychology show, these cities do not necessarily have a high output of highly cited papers.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.1954-1962
  20. Bornmann, L.: What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? : a literature survey (2013) 0.02 
    0.019867256 = product of:
  0.029800884 = sum of:
    0.012813049 = weight(_text_:in in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012813049 = score(doc=606,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07104705 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052230705 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
    0.016987834 = product of:
      0.03397567 = sum of:
        0.03397567 = weight(_text_:science in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03397567 = score(doc=606,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1375819 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052230705 = queryNorm
            0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Since the 1990s, the scope of research evaluations becomes broader as the societal products (outputs), societal use (societal references), and societal benefits (changes in society) of research come into scope. Society can reap the benefits of successful research studies only if the results are converted into marketable and consumable products (e.g., medicaments, diagnostic tools, machines, and devices) or services. A series of different names have been introduced which refer to the societal impact of research: third stream activities, societal benefits, societal quality, usefulness, public values, knowledge transfer, and societal relevance. What most of these names are concerned with is the assessment of social, cultural, environmental, and economic returns (impact and effects) from results (research output) or products (research outcome) of publicly funded research. This review intends to present existing research on and practices employed in the assessment of societal impact in the form of a literature survey. The objective is for this review to serve as a basis for the development of robust and reliable methods of societal impact measurement.
    Series
    Advances in information science
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.217-233

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 60
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes