Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.059820894 = product of:
  0.11964179 = sum of:
    0.11964179 = product of:
      0.23928358 = sum of:
        0.23928358 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23928358 = score(doc=5262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.8539892 = fieldWeight in 5262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.034183368 = product of:
  0.068366736 = sum of:
    0.068366736 = product of:
      0.13673347 = sum of:
        0.13673347 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13673347 = score(doc=5085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.4879938 = fieldWeight in 5085, 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=5085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Report of a study carried out by Cimtech Ltd on behalt of the British Library Research and Development Department into the preservation of digital media in the context of legal deposit for electronic publications. A literature review was followed by an analysis of the preservation processes adopted by existing archives of digital material. Objectives for the British Library were stated along with an assessment or resource requirements to meet them. Preservation options were presented

0.03139943 = product of:
  0.06279886 = sum of:
    0.06279886 = product of:
      0.12559772 = sum of:
        0.12559772 = weight(_text_:assessment in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12559772 = score(doc=2417,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.44825095 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This is a report about the use and misuse of citation data in the assessment of scientific research. The idea that research assessment must be done using "simple and objective" methods is increasingly prevalent today. The "simple and objective" methods are broadly interpreted as bibliometrics, that is, citation data and the statistics derived from them. There is a belief that citation statistics are inherently more accurate because they substitute simple numbers for complex judgments, and hence overcome the possible subjectivity of peer review. But this belief is unfounded. - Relying on statistics is not more accurate when the statistics are improperly used. Indeed, statistics can mislead when they are misapplied or misunderstood. Much of modern bibliometrics seems to rely on experience and intuition about the interpretation and validity of citation statistics. - While numbers appear to be "objective", their objectivity can be illusory. The meaning of a citation can be even more subjective than peer review. Because this subjectivity is less obvious for citations, those who use citation data are less likely to understand their limitations. - The sole reliance on citation data provides at best an incomplete and often shallow understanding of research - an understanding that is valid only when reinforced by other judgments. Numbers are not inherently superior to sound judgments.
Using citation data to assess research ultimately means using citation-based statistics to rank things.journals, papers, people, programs, and disciplines. The statistical tools used to rank these things are often misunderstood and misused. - For journals, the impact factor is most often used for ranking. This is a simple average derived from the distribution of citations for a collection of articles in the journal. The average captures only a small amount of information about that distribution, and it is a rather crude statistic. In addition, there are many confounding factors when judging journals by citations, and any comparison of journals requires caution when using impact factors. Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person's health. - For papers, instead of relying on the actual count of citations to compare individual papers, people frequently substitute the impact factor of the journals in which the papers appear. They believe that higher impact factors must mean higher citation counts. But this is often not the case! This is a pervasive misuse of statistics that needs to be challenged whenever and wherever it occurs. -For individual scientists, complete citation records can be difficult to compare. As a consequence, there have been attempts to find simple statistics that capture the full complexity of a scientist's citation record with a single number. The most notable of these is the h-index, which seems to be gaining in popularity. But even a casual inspection of the h-index and its variants shows that these are naive attempts to understand complicated citation records. While they capture a small amount of information about the distribution of a scientist's citations, they lose crucial information that is essential for the assessment of research.
The validity of statistics such as the impact factor and h-index is neither well understood nor well studied. The connection of these statistics with research quality is sometimes established on the basis of "experience." The justification for relying on them is that they are "readily available." The few studies of these statistics that were done focused narrowly on showing a correlation with some other measure of quality rather than on determining how one can best derive useful information from citation data. We do not dismiss citation statistics as a tool for assessing the quality of research.citation data and statistics can provide some valuable information. We recognize that assessment must be practical, and for this reason easily-derived citation statistics almost surely will be part of the process. But citation data provide only a limited and incomplete view of research quality, and the statistics derived from citation data are sometimes poorly understood and misused. Research is too important to measure its value with only a single coarse tool. We hope those involved in assessment will read both the commentary and the details of this report in order to understand not only the limitations of citation statistics but also how better to use them. If we set high standards for the conduct of science, surely we should set equally high standards for assessing its quality.

Imprint

Joint IMU/ICIAM/IMS-Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research : o.O.

0.027504025 = product of:
  0.05500805 = sum of:
    0.05500805 = product of:
      0.1100161 = sum of:
        0.1100161 = weight(_text_:22 in 7383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1100161 = score(doc=7383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7383, 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=7383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.1997 19:46:30

0.024066022 = product of:
  0.048132043 = sum of:
    0.048132043 = product of:
      0.09626409 = sum of:
        0.09626409 = weight(_text_:22 in 3473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09626409 = score(doc=3473,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3473, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3473)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

22 S

0.024066022 = product of:
  0.048132043 = sum of:
    0.048132043 = product of:
      0.09626409 = sum of:
        0.09626409 = weight(_text_:22 in 2656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09626409 = score(doc=2656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2656, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30.11.1995 20:53:22

0.020628018 = product of:
  0.041256037 = sum of:
    0.041256037 = product of:
      0.08251207 = sum of:
        0.08251207 = weight(_text_:22 in 2538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08251207 = score(doc=2538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2538, 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=2538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of academic librarianship 22(1996) no.2, S.147 (A. Schultis)

0.020628018 = product of:
  0.041256037 = sum of:
    0.041256037 = product of:
      0.08251207 = sum of:
        0.08251207 = weight(_text_:22 in 6158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08251207 = score(doc=6158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6158, 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=6158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 22(1961) no.3, S.228 (G. Jahoda)

0.020628018 = product of:
  0.041256037 = sum of:
    0.041256037 = product of:
      0.08251207 = sum of:
        0.08251207 = weight(_text_:22 in 1715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08251207 = score(doc=1715,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1715, 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=1715)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Select newsletter 1998, no.22, S.8 (P. Robinson)

0.020628018 = product of:
  0.041256037 = sum of:
    0.041256037 = product of:
      0.08251207 = sum of:
        0.08251207 = weight(_text_:22 in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08251207 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 234, 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=234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

22 S

0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 7306) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=7306,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 7306, 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=7306)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.1996 19:53:48

0.017190015 = product of:
  0.03438003 = sum of:
    0.03438003 = product of:
      0.06876006 = sum of:
        0.06876006 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06876006 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, 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=5576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

0.017091684 = product of:
  0.034183368 = sum of:
    0.034183368 = product of:
      0.068366736 = sum of:
        0.068366736 = weight(_text_:assessment in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.068366736 = score(doc=5013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2801951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.2439969 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.52102 = idf(docFreq=480, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.0137520125 = product of:
  0.027504025 = sum of:
    0.027504025 = product of:
      0.05500805 = sum of:
        0.05500805 = weight(_text_:22 in 1484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05500805 = score(doc=1484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1484, 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=1484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 9.2014 14:45:22

0.012033011 = product of:
  0.024066022 = sum of:
    0.024066022 = product of:
      0.048132043 = sum of:
        0.048132043 = weight(_text_:22 in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048132043 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2092, 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=2092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2015 16:13:38

0.010314009 = product of:
  0.020628018 = sum of:
    0.020628018 = product of:
      0.041256037 = sum of:
        0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041256037 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1404, 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=1404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

British Library Research and Innovation Centre (BLRIC) report; 22

0.010314009 = product of:
  0.020628018 = sum of:
    0.020628018 = product of:
      0.041256037 = sum of:
        0.041256037 = weight(_text_:22 in 3685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041256037 = score(doc=3685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3685, 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=3685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 5.1999 18:55:19

0.0085950075 = product of:
  0.017190015 = sum of:
    0.017190015 = product of:
      0.03438003 = sum of:
        0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03438003 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4291, 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=4291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 2.2011 19:52:22

0.0085950075 = product of:
  0.017190015 = sum of:
    0.017190015 = product of:
      0.03438003 = sum of:
        0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 4178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03438003 = score(doc=4178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4178, 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=4178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2018 17:30:43

0.0085950075 = product of:
  0.017190015 = sum of:
    0.017190015 = product of:
      0.03438003 = sum of:
        0.03438003 = weight(_text_:22 in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03438003 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17771997 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050750602 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4997, 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=4997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2019 9:26:20