-
Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.: Overlay maps based on Mendeley data : the use of altmetrics for readership networks (2016)
0.05
0.047723807 = product of:
0.14317141 = sum of:
0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 3230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012707461 = score(doc=3230,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3230, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3230)
0.13046396 = weight(_text_:networks in 3230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13046396 = score(doc=3230,freq=8.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.6271047 = fieldWeight in 3230, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3230)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Visualization of scientific results using networks has become popular in scientometric research. We provide base maps for Mendeley reader count data using the publication year 2012 from the Web of Science data. Example networks are shown and explained. The reader can use our base maps to visualize other results with the VOSViewer. The proposed overlay maps are able to show the impact of publications in terms of readership data. The advantage of using our base maps is that it is not necessary for the user to produce a network based on all data (e.g., from 1 year), but can collect the Mendeley data for a single institution (or journals, topics) and can match them with our already produced information. Generation of such large-scale networks is still a demanding task despite the available computer power and digital data availability. Therefore, it is very useful to have base maps and create the network with the overlay technique.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3064-3072
-
Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015)
0.02
0.020615976 = product of:
0.061847925 = sum of:
0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007487943 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
0.054359984 = weight(_text_:networks in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054359984 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1507-1513
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mingers, J.: Statistical significance and effect sizes of differences among research universities at the level of nations and worldwide based on the Leiden rankings (2019)
0.02
0.020615976 = product of:
0.061847925 = sum of:
0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007487943 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
0.054359984 = weight(_text_:networks in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054359984 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The Leiden Rankings can be used for grouping research universities by considering universities which are not statistically significantly different as homogeneous sets. The groups and intergroup relations can be analyzed and visualized using tools from network analysis. Using the so-called "excellence indicator" PPtop-10%-the proportion of the top-10% most-highly-cited papers assigned to a university-we pursue a classification using (a) overlapping stability intervals, (b) statistical-significance tests, and (c) effect sizes of differences among 902 universities in 54 countries; we focus on the UK, Germany, Brazil, and the USA as national examples. Although the groupings remain largely the same using different statistical significance levels or overlapping stability intervals, these classifications are uncorrelated with those based on effect sizes. Effect sizes for the differences between universities are small (w < .2). The more detailed analysis of universities at the country level suggests that distinctions beyond three or perhaps four groups of universities (high, middle, low) may not be meaningful. Given similar institutional incentives, isomorphism within each eco-system of universities should not be underestimated. Our results suggest that networks based on overlapping stability intervals can provide a first impression of the relevant groupings among universities. However, the clusters are not well-defined divisions between groups of universities.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.5, S.509-525
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.02
0.01790886 = product of:
0.053726576 = sum of:
0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017971063 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.035755515 = product of:
0.07151103 = sum of:
0.07151103 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07151103 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.011939241 = product of:
0.03581772 = sum of:
0.011980709 = weight(_text_:information in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011980709 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.023837011 = product of:
0.047674023 = sum of:
0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047674023 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1939-1943
-
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
0.00895443 = product of:
0.026863288 = sum of:
0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0089855315 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
0.017877758 = product of:
0.035755515 = sum of:
0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035755515 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.01
0.00895443 = product of:
0.026863288 = sum of:
0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0089855315 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.017877758 = product of:
0.035755515 = sum of:
0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035755515 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
-
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
0.008495895 = product of:
0.025487684 = sum of:
0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01058955 = score(doc=4186,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.0148981325 = product of:
0.029796265 = sum of:
0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029796265 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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.: Nature's top 100 revisited (2015)
0.00
0.0035298502 = product of:
0.0211791 = sum of:
0.0211791 = weight(_text_:information in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0211791 = score(doc=2351,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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
0.0034943735 = product of:
0.020966241 = sum of:
0.020966241 = weight(_text_:information in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020966241 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1247, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1247)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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
0.0034943735 = product of:
0.020966241 = sum of:
0.020966241 = weight(_text_:information in 1600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020966241 = score(doc=1600,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1600, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1600)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.197-245
-
Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Statistical tests and research assessments : a comment on Schneider (2012) (2013)
0.00
0.0029951772 = product of:
0.017971063 = sum of:
0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017971063 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1306-1308
-
Bornmann, L.: On the function of university rankings (2014)
0.00
0.0029951772 = product of:
0.017971063 = sum of:
0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017971063 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.428-429
-
Bornmann, L.: Is there currently a scientific revolution in Scientometrics? (2014)
0.00
0.0029951772 = product of:
0.017971063 = sum of:
0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017971063 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.3, S.647-648
-
Bornmann, L.: ¬The reception of publications by scientists in the early days of modern science (2014)
0.00
0.0029951772 = product of:
0.017971063 = sum of:
0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 1509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017971063 = score(doc=1509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1509)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2160-2161
-
Bornmann, L.; Bauer, J.; Haunschild, R.: Distribution of women and men among highly cited scientists (2015)
0.00
0.0029951772 = product of:
0.017971063 = sum of:
0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017971063 = score(doc=2349,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2715-2716
-
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)
0.00
0.0029951772 = product of:
0.017971063 = sum of:
0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017971063 = score(doc=2779,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
-
Bornmann, L.: What do altmetrics counts mean? : a plea for content analyses (2016)
0.00
0.0029951772 = product of:
0.017971063 = sum of:
0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017971063 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.1016-1017
-
Besselaar, P. van den; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Correct assumptions? (2016)
0.00
0.0029951772 = product of:
0.017971063 = sum of:
0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 3020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017971063 = score(doc=3020,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3020, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3020)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1779
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Replicability and the public/private divide (2016)
0.00
0.0029951772 = product of:
0.017971063 = sum of:
0.017971063 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017971063 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1777-1778
