-
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)
0.01
0.014883147 = product of:
0.05209101 = sum of:
0.026092423 = product of:
0.052184846 = sum of:
0.052184846 = weight(_text_:science in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052184846 = score(doc=2779,freq=16.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.025998589 = weight(_text_:library in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025998589 = score(doc=2779,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.: On the function of university rankings (2014)
0.01
0.014672486 = product of:
0.1027074 = sum of:
0.1027074 = sum of:
0.036900256 = weight(_text_:science in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036900256 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
0.06580714 = weight(_text_:29 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06580714 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 16:55:03
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.428-429
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.01
0.014587916 = product of:
0.051057704 = sum of:
0.018450128 = product of:
0.036900256 = sum of:
0.036900256 = weight(_text_:science in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036900256 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.032607578 = product of:
0.065215155 = sum of:
0.065215155 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.065215155 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867
-
Mutz, R.; Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Testing for the fairness and predictive validity of research funding decisions : a multilevel multiple imputation for missing data approach using ex-ante and ex-post peer evaluation data from the Austrian science fund (2015)
0.01
0.01248126 = product of:
0.043684408 = sum of:
0.013315234 = product of:
0.026630469 = sum of:
0.026630469 = weight(_text_:science in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026630469 = score(doc=2270,freq=6.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.25204095 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.030369172 = product of:
0.060738344 = sum of:
0.060738344 = weight(_text_:applications in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060738344 = score(doc=2270,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17659263 = queryWeight, product of:
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.34394607 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- It is essential for research funding organizations to ensure both the validity and fairness of the grant approval procedure. The ex-ante peer evaluation (EXANTE) of N?=?8,496 grant applications submitted to the Austrian Science Fund from 1999 to 2009 was statistically analyzed. For 1,689 funded research projects an ex-post peer evaluation (EXPOST) was also available; for the rest of the grant applications a multilevel missing data imputation approach was used to consider verification bias for the first time in peer-review research. Without imputation, the predictive validity of EXANTE was low (r?=?.26) but underestimated due to verification bias, and with imputation it was r?=?.49. That is, the decision-making procedure is capable of selecting the best research proposals for funding. In the EXANTE there were several potential biases (e.g., gender). With respect to the EXPOST there was only one real bias (discipline-specific and year-specific differential prediction). The novelty of this contribution is, first, the combining of theoretical concepts of validity and fairness with a missing data imputation approach to correct for verification bias and, second, multilevel modeling to test peer review-based funding decisions for both validity and fairness in terms of potential and real biases.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2321-2339
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors : an alternative research design with policy implications (2011)
0.01
0.011101538 = product of:
0.03885538 = sum of:
0.017189894 = product of:
0.034379788 = sum of:
0.034379788 = weight(_text_:science in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034379788 = score(doc=4919,freq=10.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.02166549 = weight(_text_:library in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02166549 = score(doc=4919,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- 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
-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.01
0.011101538 = product of:
0.03885538 = sum of:
0.017189894 = product of:
0.034379788 = sum of:
0.034379788 = weight(_text_:science in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034379788 = score(doc=3231,freq=10.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.02166549 = weight(_text_:library in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02166549 = score(doc=3231,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.009725277 = product of:
0.03403847 = sum of:
0.012300085 = product of:
0.02460017 = sum of:
0.02460017 = weight(_text_:science in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02460017 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.021738386 = product of:
0.04347677 = sum of:
0.04347677 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04347677 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1939-1943
-
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
0.009262022 = product of:
0.032417074 = sum of:
0.018830584 = product of:
0.03766117 = sum of:
0.03766117 = weight(_text_:science in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03766117 = score(doc=4186,freq=12.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.013586491 = product of:
0.027172983 = sum of:
0.027172983 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027172983 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: Distributions instead of single numbers : percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers (2014)
0.01
0.008558949 = product of:
0.059912644 = sum of:
0.059912644 = sum of:
0.02152515 = weight(_text_:science in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02152515 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
0.038387496 = weight(_text_:29 in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038387496 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 15:58:21
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.206-208
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.01
0.008385715 = product of:
0.029350001 = sum of:
0.013046212 = product of:
0.026092423 = sum of:
0.026092423 = weight(_text_:science in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026092423 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.016303789 = product of:
0.032607578 = sum of:
0.032607578 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032607578 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.: ¬An empirical look at the nature index (2017)
0.01
0.007483331 = product of:
0.026191657 = sum of:
0.0108718425 = product of:
0.021743685 = sum of:
0.021743685 = weight(_text_:science in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021743685 = score(doc=3432,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 3432, 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=3432)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.015319815 = weight(_text_:library in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015319815 = score(doc=3432,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10546913 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3432, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3432)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- In November 2014, the Nature Index (NI) was introduced (see http://www.natureindex.com) by the Nature Publishing Group (NPG). The NI comprises the primary research articles published in the past 12 months in a selection of reputable journals. Starting from two short comments on the NI (Haunschild & Bornmann, 2015a, 2015b), we undertake an empirical analysis of the NI using comprehensive country data. We investigate whether the huge efforts of computing the NI are justified and whether the size-dependent NI indicators should be complemented by size-independent variants. The analysis uses data from the Max Planck Digital Library in-house database (which is based on Web of Science data) and from the NPG. In the first step of the analysis, we correlate the NI with other metrics that are simpler to generate than the NI. The resulting large correlation coefficients point out that the NI produces similar results as simpler solutions. In the second step of the analysis, relative and size-independent variants of the NI are generated that should be additionally presented by the NPG. The size-dependent NI indicators favor large countries (or institutions) and the top-performing small countries (or institutions) do not come into the picture.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.3, S.653-659
-
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
0.007293958 = product of:
0.025528852 = sum of:
0.009225064 = product of:
0.018450128 = sum of:
0.018450128 = weight(_text_:science in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018450128 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.016303789 = product of:
0.032607578 = sum of:
0.032607578 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032607578 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14046472 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Schier, H.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-D.: Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? : a study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes (2011)
0.01
0.0061135357 = product of:
0.04279475 = sum of:
0.04279475 = sum of:
0.0153751075 = weight(_text_:science in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0153751075 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
0.027419642 = weight(_text_:29 in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027419642 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14110081 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 18:29:40
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.61-71
-
Bornmann, L.: ¬The reception of publications by scientists in the early days of modern science (2014)
0.00
0.0037274892 = product of:
0.026092423 = sum of:
0.026092423 = product of:
0.052184846 = sum of:
0.052184846 = weight(_text_:science in 1509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052184846 = score(doc=1509,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2160-2161
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: Growth rates of modern science : a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015)
0.00
0.0032946658 = product of:
0.02306266 = sum of:
0.02306266 = product of:
0.04612532 = sum of:
0.04612532 = weight(_text_:science in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04612532 = score(doc=2261,freq=18.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.: Nature's top 100 revisited (2015)
0.00
0.0031062409 = product of:
0.021743685 = sum of:
0.021743685 = product of:
0.04348737 = sum of:
0.04348737 = weight(_text_:science in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04348737 = score(doc=2351,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Content
- Bezug: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2714. Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23554/abstract.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2166
-
Collins, H.; Bornmann, L.: On scientific misconduct (2014)
0.00
0.0030750216 = product of:
0.02152515 = sum of:
0.02152515 = product of:
0.0430503 = sum of:
0.0430503 = weight(_text_:science in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0430503 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1247, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1247)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1089-1090
-
Bornmann, L.: Scientific peer review (2011)
0.00
0.0030750216 = product of:
0.02152515 = sum of:
0.02152515 = product of:
0.0430503 = sum of:
0.0430503 = weight(_text_:science in 1600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0430503 = score(doc=1600,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1600, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1600)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.197-245
-
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)
0.00
0.002946839 = product of:
0.020627871 = sum of:
0.020627871 = product of:
0.041255742 = sum of:
0.041255742 = weight(_text_:science in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041255742 = score(doc=1108,freq=10.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = 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)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- 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
-
Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Statistical tests and research assessments : a comment on Schneider (2012) (2013)
0.00
0.0026357328 = product of:
0.018450128 = sum of:
0.018450128 = product of:
0.036900256 = sum of:
0.036900256 = weight(_text_:science in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.036900256 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10565929 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.04011181 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 752, 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=752)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1306-1308
