Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  1. Bornmann, L.: What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? : a literature survey (2013) 0.01
    0.010291515 = product of:
      0.04116606 = sum of:
        0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04116606 = score(doc=606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    7. 2.2013 19:14:26
  2. Bornmann, L.; Moya Anegón, F. de; Mutz, R.: Do universities or research institutions with a specific subject profile have an advantage or a disadvantage in institutional rankings? (2013) 0.01
    0.010291515 = product of:
      0.04116606 = sum of:
        0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04116606 = score(doc=1109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    29.10.2013 20:26:34
  3. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.01
    0.010119174 = product of:
      0.040476695 = sum of:
        0.040476695 = product of:
          0.08095339 = sum of:
            0.08095339 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08095339 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04979191 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  4. 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
    0.008576263 = product of:
      0.03430505 = sum of:
        0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03430505 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    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.
  5. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.01
    0.006746116 = product of:
      0.026984464 = sum of:
        0.026984464 = product of:
          0.05396893 = sum of:
            0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05396893 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04979191 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  6. 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
    0.0055861375 = product of:
      0.02234455 = sum of:
        0.02234455 = product of:
          0.0446891 = sum of:
            0.0446891 = weight(_text_:access in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0446891 = score(doc=4132,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04979191 = queryNorm
                0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    In a comprehensive research project, we investigated the predictive validity of selection decisions and reviewers' ratings at the open access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP). ACP is a high-impact journal publishing papers on the Earth's atmosphere and the underlying chemical and physical processes. Scientific journals have to deal with the following question concerning the predictive validity: Are in fact the "best" scientific works selected from the manuscripts submitted? In this study we examined whether selecting the "best" manuscripts means selecting papers that after publication show top citation performance as compared to other papers in this research area. First, we appraised the citation impact of later published manuscripts based on the percentile citedness rank classes of the population distribution (scaling in a specific subfield). Second, we analyzed the association between the decisions (n = 677 accepted or rejected, but published elsewhere manuscripts) or ratings (reviewers' ratings for n = 315 manuscripts), respectively, and the citation impact classes of the manuscripts. The results confirm the predictive validity of the ACP peer review system.
  7. 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
    0.005059587 = product of:
      0.020238347 = sum of:
        0.020238347 = product of:
          0.040476695 = sum of:
            0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040476695 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04979191 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:44:17
  8. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.01
    0.005059587 = product of:
      0.020238347 = sum of:
        0.020238347 = product of:
          0.040476695 = sum of:
            0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040476695 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04979191 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
  9. 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) 0.00
    0.0042163227 = product of:
      0.01686529 = sum of:
        0.01686529 = product of:
          0.03373058 = sum of:
            0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03373058 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04979191 = 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)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07