-
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)
0.02
0.015600072 = product of:
0.046800215 = sum of:
0.046800215 = product of:
0.09360043 = sum of:
0.09360043 = weight(_text_:publishing in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09360043 = score(doc=4132,freq=4.0), product of:
0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.38169086 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- 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.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.01
0.013600955 = product of:
0.040802862 = sum of:
0.040802862 = product of:
0.081605725 = sum of:
0.081605725 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.081605725 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = 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
-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.01
0.011030916 = product of:
0.03309275 = sum of:
0.03309275 = product of:
0.0661855 = sum of:
0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0661855 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
-
Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.: ¬An empirical look at the nature index (2017)
0.01
0.011030916 = product of:
0.03309275 = sum of:
0.03309275 = product of:
0.0661855 = sum of:
0.0661855 = weight(_text_:publishing in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0661855 = score(doc=3432,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24522576 = queryWeight, product of:
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = queryNorm
0.26989618 = fieldWeight in 3432, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.885643 = idf(docFreq=907, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3432)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- In November 2014, the Nature Index (NI) was introduced (see http://www.natureindex.com) by the Nature Publishing Group (NPG). The NI comprises the primary research articles published in the past 12 months in a selection of reputable journals. Starting from two short comments on the NI (Haunschild & Bornmann, 2015a, 2015b), we undertake an empirical analysis of the NI using comprehensive country data. We investigate whether the huge efforts of computing the NI are justified and whether the size-dependent NI indicators should be complemented by size-independent variants. The analysis uses data from the Max Planck Digital Library in-house database (which is based on Web of Science data) and from the NPG. In the first step of the analysis, we correlate the NI with other metrics that are simpler to generate than the NI. The resulting large correlation coefficients point out that the NI produces similar results as simpler solutions. In the second step of the analysis, relative and size-independent variants of the NI are generated that should be additionally presented by the NPG. The size-dependent NI indicators favor large countries (or institutions) and the top-performing small countries (or institutions) do not come into the picture.
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.0090673035 = product of:
0.02720191 = sum of:
0.02720191 = product of:
0.05440382 = sum of:
0.05440382 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05440382 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = 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
0.0068004774 = product of:
0.020401431 = sum of:
0.020401431 = product of:
0.040802862 = sum of:
0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040802862 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = 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
0.0068004774 = product of:
0.020401431 = sum of:
0.020401431 = product of:
0.040802862 = sum of:
0.040802862 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040802862 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = 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
0.0056670653 = product of:
0.017001195 = sum of:
0.017001195 = product of:
0.03400239 = sum of:
0.03400239 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03400239 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17576782 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05019314 = 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
