Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Perianes-Rodríguez, A."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Albarrán, P.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: Differences in citation impact across countries (2015) 0.02 
    0.023150655 = product of:
  0.09260262 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=1665,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 1665, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1665)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 1665) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=1665,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 1665, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1665)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Using a large data set, indexed by Thomson Reuters, consisting of 4.4 million articles published in 1998-2003 with a 5-year citation window for each year, this article studies country citation distributions for a partitioning of the world into 36 countries and two geographical areas in eight broad scientific fields and the all-sciences case. The two key findings are the following. First, country citation distributions are highly skewed and very similar to each other in all fields. Second, to a large extent, differences in country citation distributions can be accounted for by scale factors. The Empirical situation described in the article helps to understand why international comparisons of citation impact according to (a) mean citations and (b) the percentage of articles in each country belonging to the top 10% of the most cited articles are so similar to each other.
  2. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.01 
    0.0111470455 = product of:
  0.044588182 = sum of:
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.010738007 = product of:
      0.021476014 = sum of:
        0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021476014 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, 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=4051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors