-
Rosenberg, V.: ¬An assessment of ISI's new Web of Science : ISI's services brings citiation indexing to new and advanced researchers (1998)
0.04
0.04272921 = product of:
0.08545842 = sum of:
0.08545842 = product of:
0.17091684 = sum of:
0.17091684 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1885) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.17091684 = score(doc=1885,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.60999227 = fieldWeight in 1885, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1885)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Joint, N.: Bemused by bibliometrics : using citation analysis to evaluate research quality (2008)
0.04
0.037004586 = product of:
0.07400917 = sum of:
0.07400917 = product of:
0.14801835 = sum of:
0.14801835 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14801835 = score(doc=1900,freq=6.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.5282689 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which library and information science (LIS) issues have been handled in the formulation of recent UK Higher Education policy concerned with research quality evaluation. Design/methodology/approach - A chronological review of decision making about digital rights arrangements for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and of recent announcements about the new shape of metrics-based assessment in the Research Excellence Framework, which supersedes the RAE. Against this chronological framework, the likely nature of LIS practitioner reactions to the flow of decision making is suggested. Findings - It was found that a weak grasp of LIS issues by decision makers undermines the process whereby effective research evaluation models are created. LIS professional opinion should be sampled before key decisions are made. Research limitations/implications - This paper makes no sophisticated comments on the complex research issues underlying advanced bibliometric research evaluation models. It does point out that sophisticated and expensive bibliometric consultancies arrive at many conclusions about metrics-based research assessment that are common knowledge amongst LIS practitioners. Practical implications - Practical difficulties arise when one announces a decision to move to a new and specific type of research evaluation indicator before one has worked out anything very specific about that indicator. Originality/value - In this paper, the importance of information management issues to the mainstream issues of government and public administration is underlined. The most valuable conclusion of this paper is that, because LIS issues are now at the heart of democratic decision making, LIS practitioners and professionals should be given some sort of role in advising on such matters.
-
Howard, D.L.: What the eye sees while predicitng a document's pertinence from its citation (1991)
0.03
0.034183368 = product of:
0.068366736 = sum of:
0.068366736 = product of:
0.13673347 = sum of:
0.13673347 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13673347 = score(doc=3675,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.4879938 = fieldWeight in 3675, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3675)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Predicting relevance of documents from citations is a common problem for information users. The study addresses the relevance prediction process and most specifically, what is viewed by the subject while using the citations. 2 kinds of protocols were collected while 11 subjects viewed 7 citations each. Eye fixations and eye movements between parts of citations were examined. Verbal reports from subjects during this process were used to explore the process of assessment
-
Shaw, W.M.: Subject and citation indexing : pt.2: the optimal, cluster-based retrieval performance of composite representations (1991)
0.03
0.034183368 = product of:
0.068366736 = sum of:
0.068366736 = product of:
0.13673347 = sum of:
0.13673347 = weight(_text_:assessment in 4842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13673347 = score(doc=4842,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.4879938 = fieldWeight in 4842, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4842)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Fortsetzung von pt.1: experimental retrieval results are presented as a function of the exhaustivity and similarity of the composite representations and reveal consistent patterns from which optimal performance levels can be identified. The optimal performance values provide an assessment of the absolute capacity of each composite representation to associate documents relevant to different queries in single-link hierarchies. The effectiveness of the exhaustive representation composed of references and citations is materially superior to the effectiveness of exhaustive composite representations that include subject descriptions
-
Oppenheim, C.: Do citations count? : Citation indexing and the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) (1996)
0.03
0.034183368 = product of:
0.068366736 = sum of:
0.068366736 = product of:
0.13673347 = sum of:
0.13673347 = weight(_text_:assessment in 6673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13673347 = score(doc=6673,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.4879938 = fieldWeight in 6673, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6673)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Vaughan, L.; Shaw, D.: Web citation data for impact assessment : a comparison of four science disciplines (2005)
0.03
0.030214114 = product of:
0.06042823 = sum of:
0.06042823 = product of:
0.12085646 = sum of:
0.12085646 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12085646 = score(doc=3880,freq=4.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.43132967 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The number and type of Web citations to journal articles in four areas of science are examined: biology, genetics, medicine, and multidisciplinary sciences. For a sample of 5,972 articles published in 114 journals, the median Web citation counts per journal article range from 6.2 in medicine to 10.4 in genetics. About 30% of Web citations in each area indicate intellectual impact (citations from articles or class readings, in contrast to citations from bibliographic services or the author's or journal's home page). Journals receiving more Web citations also have higher percentages of citations indicating intellectual impact. There is significant correlation between the number of citations reported in the databases from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI, now Thomson Scientific) and the number of citations retrieved using the Google search engine (Web citations). The correlation is much weaker for journals published outside the United Kingdom or United States and for multidisciplinary journals. Web citation numbers are higher than ISI citation counts, suggesting that Web searches might be conducted for an earlier or a more fine-grained assessment of an article's impact. The Web-evident impact of non-UK/USA publications might provide a balance to the geographic or cultural biases observed in ISI's data, although the stability of Web citation counts is debatable.
-
Cronin, B.; Weaver-Wozniak, S.: Online access to acknowledgements (1993)
0.03
0.029910447 = product of:
0.059820894 = sum of:
0.059820894 = product of:
0.11964179 = sum of:
0.11964179 = weight(_text_:assessment in 7827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11964179 = score(doc=7827,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.4269946 = fieldWeight in 7827, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7827)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Reviews the scale, range and consistency of acknowledgement behaviour, in citations, for a number of academic disciplines. The qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests a pervasive and consistent practice in which acknowledgements define a variety of social, cognitive and instrumental relationships between scholars and within and across disciplines. As such they may be used alongside other bibliometric indicators, such as citations, to map networks of influence. Considers the case for using acknowledgements data in the assessment of academic performance and proposes an online acknowledgement index to facilitate this process, perhaps as a logical extension of ISI's citation indexing products
-
Nicolaisen, J.: Citation analysis (2007)
0.03
0.027504025 = product of:
0.05500805 = sum of:
0.05500805 = product of:
0.1100161 = sum of:
0.1100161 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1100161 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 13. 7.2008 19:53:22
-
Døsen, K.: One more reference on self-reference (1992)
0.03
0.027504025 = product of:
0.05500805 = sum of:
0.05500805 = product of:
0.1100161 = sum of:
0.1100161 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1100161 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 7. 2.2005 14:10:22
-
Moed, H.F.; Bruin, R.E.D.; Leeuwen, T.N.V.: New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance : database description, overview of indicators and first applications (1995)
0.03
0.025637524 = product of:
0.05127505 = sum of:
0.05127505 = product of:
0.1025501 = sum of:
0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1025501 = score(doc=3376,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Sombatsompop, N.; Markpin, T.: Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields (2005)
0.03
0.025637524 = product of:
0.05127505 = sum of:
0.05127505 = product of:
0.1025501 = sum of:
0.1025501 = weight(_text_:assessment in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1025501 = score(doc=3467,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.36599535 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The journal impact factors, published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI; Philadelphia, PA), are widely known and are used to evaluate overall journal quality and the quality of the papers published therein. However, when making comparisons between subject fields, the work of individual scientists and their research institutions as reflected in their articles' ISI impact factors can become meaningless. This inequality will remain as long as ISI impact factors are employed as an instrument to assess the quality of international research. Here we propose a new mathematical index entitled Impact Factor PointAverage (IFPA) for assessment of the quality of individual research work in different subject fields. The index is established based an a normalization of differences in impact factors, rankings, and number of journal titles in different subject fields. The proposed index is simple and enables the ISI impact factors to be used with equality, especially when evaluating the quality of research work in different subject fields.
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001)
0.02
0.024310352 = product of:
0.048620705 = sum of:
0.048620705 = product of:
0.09724141 = sum of:
0.09724141 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09724141 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:22:28
-
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Stuart, E.; Makita, M.; Abdoli, M.; Wilson, P.; Levitt, J.: In which fields are citations indicators of research quality? (2023)
0.02
0.021364605 = product of:
0.04272921 = sum of:
0.04272921 = product of:
0.08545842 = sum of:
0.08545842 = weight(_text_:assessment in 1033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08545842 = score(doc=1033,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30499613 = fieldWeight in 1033, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1033)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Citation counts are widely used as indicators of research quality to support or replace human peer review and for lists of top cited papers, researchers, and institutions. Nevertheless, the relationship between citations and research quality is poorly evidenced. We report the first large-scale science-wide academic evaluation of the relationship between research quality and citations (field normalized citation counts), correlating them for 87,739 journal articles in 34 field-based UK Units of Assessment (UoA). The two correlate positively in all academic fields, from very weak (0.1) to strong (0.5), reflecting broadly linear relationships in all fields. We give the first evidence that the correlations are positive even across the arts and humanities. The patterns are similar for the field classification schemes of Scopus and Dimensions.ai, although varying for some individual subjects and therefore more uncertain for these. We also show for the first time that no field has a citation threshold beyond which all articles are excellent quality, so lists of top cited articles are not pure collections of excellence, and neither is any top citation percentile indicator. Thus, while appropriately field normalized citations associate positively with research quality in all fields, they never perfectly reflect it, even at high values.
-
Garfield, E.; Stock, W.G.: Citation Consciousness : Interview with Eugene Garfiels, chairman emeritus of ISI; Philadelphia (2002)
0.02
0.017190015 = product of:
0.03438003 = sum of:
0.03438003 = product of:
0.06876006 = sum of:
0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06876006 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.014586212 = product of:
0.029172424 = sum of:
0.029172424 = product of:
0.05834485 = sum of:
0.05834485 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05834485 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Bensman, S.J.: Eugene Garfield, Francis Narin, and PageRank : the theoretical bases of the Google search engine (2013)
0.01
0.0137520125 = product of:
0.027504025 = sum of:
0.027504025 = product of:
0.05500805 = sum of:
0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05500805 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 17.12.2013 11:02:22
-
Garfield, E.: Recollections of Irving H. Sher 1924-1996 : Polymath/information scientist extraordinaire (2001)
0.01
0.012033011 = product of:
0.024066022 = sum of:
0.024066022 = product of:
0.048132043 = sum of:
0.048132043 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048132043 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6920)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.12.2001 14:01:22
-
Van der Veer Martens, B.; Goodrum, G.: ¬The diffusion of theories : a functional approach (2006)
0.01
0.012033011 = product of:
0.024066022 = sum of:
0.024066022 = product of:
0.048132043 = sum of:
0.048132043 = weight(_text_:22 in 5269) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048132043 = score(doc=5269,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5269, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5269)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:20:01
-
Tay, A.: ¬The next generation discovery citation indexes : a review of the landscape in 2020 (2020)
0.01
0.012033011 = product of:
0.024066022 = sum of:
0.024066022 = product of:
0.048132043 = sum of:
0.048132043 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048132043 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 17.11.2020 12:22:59
-
Campanario, J.M.: Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? (1996)
0.01
0.010314009 = product of:
0.020628018 = sum of:
0.020628018 = product of:
0.041256037 = sum of:
0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4215) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041256037 = score(doc=4215,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050750602 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4215, 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=4215)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this article a quantitative study is reported on the resistance that scientists may encounter when they do innovative work or when they attempt to publish articles that later become highly cited. A set of 205 commentaries by authors of some of the most-cited papers of all times have been examined in order to identify those articles whose authors encountered difficulty in getting his or her work published. There are 22 commentaries (10,7%) in which authors mention some difficulty or resistance in doing or publishing the research reported in the article. Three of the articles which had problems in being published are the most cited from their respective journals. According the authors' commentaries, although sometimes referees' negative evaluations can help improve the articles, in other instances referees and editors wrongly rejected the highly cited articles
