-
Bornmann, L.; Thor, A.; Marx, W.; Schier, H.: ¬The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences : an exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute (2016)
0.03
0.025483541 = product of:
0.07645062 = sum of:
0.07645062 = weight(_text_:social in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07645062 = score(doc=3160,freq=6.0), product of:
0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.050248925 = queryNorm
0.3815443 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In the humanities and social sciences, bibliometric methods for the assessment of research performance are (so far) less common. This study uses a concrete example in an attempt to evaluate a research institute from the area of social sciences and humanities with the help of data from Google Scholar (GS). In order to use GS for a bibliometric study, we developed procedures for the normalization of citation impact, building on the procedures of classical bibliometrics. In order to test the convergent validity of the normalized citation impact scores, we calculated normalized scores for a subset of the publications based on data from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. Even if scores calculated with the help of GS and the WoS/Scopus are not identical for the different publication types (considered here), they are so similar that they result in the same assessment of the institute investigated in this study: For example, the institute's papers whose journals are covered in the WoS are cited at about an average rate (compared with the other papers in the journals).
-
Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.: Overlay maps based on Mendeley data : the use of altmetrics for readership networks (2016)
0.02
0.024841016 = product of:
0.07452305 = sum of:
0.07452305 = product of:
0.1490461 = sum of:
0.1490461 = weight(_text_:networks in 3230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1490461 = score(doc=3230,freq=8.0), product of:
0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.050248925 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Bornmann, L.: What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? : a literature survey (2013)
0.02
0.017655514 = product of:
0.05296654 = sum of:
0.05296654 = weight(_text_:social in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05296654 = score(doc=606,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20037155 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.050248925 = queryNorm
0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Since the 1990s, the scope of research evaluations becomes broader as the societal products (outputs), societal use (societal references), and societal benefits (changes in society) of research come into scope. Society can reap the benefits of successful research studies only if the results are converted into marketable and consumable products (e.g., medicaments, diagnostic tools, machines, and devices) or services. A series of different names have been introduced which refer to the societal impact of research: third stream activities, societal benefits, societal quality, usefulness, public values, knowledge transfer, and societal relevance. What most of these names are concerned with is the assessment of social, cultural, environmental, and economic returns (impact and effects) from results (research output) or products (research outcome) of publicly funded research. This review intends to present existing research on and practices employed in the assessment of societal impact in the form of a literature survey. The objective is for this review to serve as a basis for the development of robust and reliable methods of societal impact measurement.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.01
0.013616072 = product of:
0.040848214 = sum of:
0.040848214 = product of:
0.08169643 = sum of:
0.08169643 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08169643 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050248925 = 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(1/3)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015)
0.01
0.010350424 = product of:
0.03105127 = sum of:
0.03105127 = product of:
0.06210254 = sum of:
0.06210254 = weight(_text_:networks in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06210254 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.050248925 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
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)
0.01
0.010350424 = product of:
0.03105127 = sum of:
0.03105127 = product of:
0.06210254 = sum of:
0.06210254 = weight(_text_:networks in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06210254 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23767339 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.050248925 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.009077381 = product of:
0.027232144 = sum of:
0.027232144 = product of:
0.054464288 = sum of:
0.054464288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054464288 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050248925 = 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(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
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
0.006808036 = product of:
0.020424107 = sum of:
0.020424107 = product of:
0.040848214 = sum of:
0.040848214 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040848214 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050248925 = 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(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:44:17
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.01
0.006808036 = product of:
0.020424107 = sum of:
0.020424107 = product of:
0.040848214 = sum of:
0.040848214 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040848214 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050248925 = 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(1/3)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
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
0.0056733633 = product of:
0.01702009 = sum of:
0.01702009 = product of:
0.03404018 = sum of:
0.03404018 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03404018 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17596318 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050248925 = 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(1/3)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
