Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.034864325 = product of:
  0.06972865 = sum of:
    0.06972865 = product of:
      0.1394573 = sum of:
        0.1394573 = weight(_text_:journals in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1394573 = score(doc=2707,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.5435461 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) published by Thomson Reuters is often used to evaluate the significance and performance of scientific journals. Besides methodological problems with the JIF, the critical issue is whether a single measure is sufficient for characterizing the impact of journals, particularly the impact of multidisciplinary and wide-scope journals that publish articles in a broad range of research fields. Taking Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society as examples, we examined the two journals' publication and impact profiles across the sections of Chemical Abstracts and compared the results with the JIF. The analysis was based primarily on Communications published in Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society during 2001 to 2005. The findings show that the information available in the Science Citation Index is a rather unreliable indication of the document type and is therefore inappropriate for comparative analysis. The findings further suggest that the composition of the journal in terms of contribution types, the length of the citation window, and the thematic focus of the journal in terms of the sections of Chemical Abstracts has a significant influence on the overall journal citation impact. Therefore, a single measure of journal citation impact such as the JIF is insufficient for characterizing the significance and performance of wide-scope journals. For the comparison of journals, more sophisticated methods such as publication and impact profiles across subject headings of bibliographic databases (e.g., the sections of Chemical Abstracts) are valuable.

0.025161162 = product of:
  0.050322324 = sum of:
    0.050322324 = product of:
      0.10064465 = sum of:
        0.10064465 = weight(_text_:journals in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10064465 = score(doc=3160,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.39227062 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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).

0.020769471 = product of:
  0.041538943 = sum of:
    0.041538943 = product of:
      0.083077885 = sum of:
        0.083077885 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083077885 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17893866 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = 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

0.017791625 = product of:
  0.03558325 = sum of:
    0.03558325 = product of:
      0.0711665 = sum of:
        0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0711665 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.017791625 = product of:
  0.03558325 = sum of:
    0.03558325 = product of:
      0.0711665 = sum of:
        0.0711665 = weight(_text_:journals in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0711665 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25656942 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05109862 = queryNorm
            0.2773772 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.021064 = idf(docFreq=792, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a comprehensive research project, we investigated the predictive validity of selection decisions and reviewers' ratings at the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). ACP is a high-impact journal publishing papers on the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes. Scientific journals have to deal with the following question concerning the predictive validity: Are in fact the "best" scientific works selected from the manuscripts submitted? In this study we examined whether selecting the "best" manuscripts means selecting papers that after publication show top citation performance as compared to other papers in this research area. First, we appraised the citation impact of later published manuscripts based on the percentile citedness rank classes of the population distribution (scaling in a specific subfield). Second, we analyzed the association between the decisions (n = 677 accepted or rejected, but published elsewhere manuscripts) or ratings (reviewers' ratings for n = 315 manuscripts), respectively, and the citation impact classes of the manuscripts. The results confirm the predictive validity of the ACP peer review system.