Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  1. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016) 0.02 
    0.022683393 = product of:
  0.068050176 = sum of:
    0.042333104 = weight(_text_:web in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042333104 = score(doc=2779,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
    0.025717068 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025717068 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
    Aid
    Web of Science
  2. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.01 
    0.013807512 = product of:
  0.041422535 = sum of:
    0.029934023 = weight(_text_:web in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029934023 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.011488512 = product of:
      0.034465536 = sum of:
        0.034465536 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034465536 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
  3. Egghe, L.; Bornmann, L.: Fallout and miss in journal peer review (2013) 0.01 
    0.007071832 = product of:
  0.042430993 = sum of:
    0.042430993 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042430993 = score(doc=1759,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1759, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1759)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The authors exploit the analogy between journal peer review and information retrieval in order to quantify some imperfections of journal peer review. Design/methodology/approach - The authors define fallout rate and missing rate in order to describe quantitatively the weak papers that were accepted and the strong papers that were missed, respectively. To assess the quality of manuscripts the authors use bibliometric measures. Findings - Fallout rate and missing rate are put in relation with the hitting rate and success rate. Conclusions are drawn on what fraction of weak papers will be accepted in order to have a certain fraction of strong accepted papers. Originality/value - The paper illustrates that these curves are new in peer review research when interpreted in the information retrieval terminology.
  4. 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 
    0.005801704 = product of:
  0.034810223 = sum of:
    0.034810223 = product of:
      0.05221533 = sum of:
        0.023233337 = weight(_text_:system in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023233337 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
        0.028981995 = weight(_text_:29 in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028981995 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
    Date
    8. 1.2011 18:29:40
  5. Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Which cities produce more excellent papers than can be expected? : a new mapping approach, using Google Maps, based on statistical significance testing (2011) 0.00 
    0.0049890038 = product of:
  0.029934023 = sum of:
    0.029934023 = weight(_text_:web in 4767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029934023 = score(doc=4767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4767, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4767)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The methods presented in this paper allow for a statistical analysis revealing centers of excellence around the world using programs that are freely available. Based on Web of Science data (a fee-based database), field-specific excellence can be identified in cities where highly cited papers were published more frequently than can be expected. Compared to the mapping approaches published hitherto, our approach is more analytically oriented by allowing the assessment of an observed number of excellent papers for a city against the expected number. Top performers in output are cities in which authors are located who publish a statistically significant higher number of highly cited papers than can be expected for these cities. As sample data for physics, chemistry, and psychology show, these cities do not necessarily have a high output of highly cited papers.
  6. Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.: Overlay maps based on Mendeley data : the use of altmetrics for readership networks (2016) 0.00 
    0.0049890038 = product of:
  0.029934023 = sum of:
    0.029934023 = weight(_text_:web in 3230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029934023 = score(doc=3230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3230)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  7. Bornmann, L.; Moya Anegón, F.de: What proportion of excellent papers makes an institution one of the best worldwide? : Specifying thresholds for the interpretation of the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking and the Leiden Ranking (2014) 0.00 
    0.0041575036 = product of:
  0.02494502 = sum of:
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 1235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=1235,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1235, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1235)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    University rankings generally present users with the problem of placing the results given for an institution in context. Only a comparison with the performance of all other institutions makes it possible to say exactly where an institution stands. In order to interpret the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking (based on Scopus data) and the Leiden Ranking (based on Web of Science data), in this study we offer thresholds with which it is possible to assess whether an institution belongs to the top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, top 25%, or top 50% of institutions in the world. The thresholds are based on the excellence rate or PPtop 10%. Both indicators measure the proportion of an institution's publications which belong to the 10% most frequently cited publications and are the most important indicators for measuring institutional impact. For example, while an institution must achieve a value of 24.63% in the Leiden Ranking 2013 to be considered one of the top 1% of institutions worldwide, the SCImago Institutions Ranking requires 30.2%.
  8. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: Growth rates of modern science : a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015) 0.00 
    0.0041575036 = product of:
  0.02494502 = sum of:
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=2261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Many studies (in information science) have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we reexamine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (a) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (b) analyze the data across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with an advanced statistical technique-segmented regression analysis-which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (a) the number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (b) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three essential growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars, and 8 to 9% to 2010.
  9. Bornmann, L.: How much does the expected number of citations for a publication change if it contains the address of a specific scientific institute? : a new approach for the analysis of citation data on the institutional level based on regression models (2016) 0.00 
    0.0041575036 = product of:
  0.02494502 = sum of:
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 3095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=3095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3095)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Citation data for institutes are generally provided as numbers of citations or as relative citation rates (as, for example, in the Leiden Ranking). These numbers can then be compared between the institutes. This study aims to present a new approach for the evaluation of citation data at the institutional level, based on regression models. As example data, the study includes all articles and reviews from the Web of Science for the publication year 2003 (n?=?886,416 papers). The study is based on an in-house database of the Max Planck Society. The study investigates how much the expected number of citations for a publication changes if it contains the address of an institute. The calculation of the expected values allows, on the one hand, investigating how the citation impact of the papers of an institute appears in comparison with the total of all papers. On the other hand, the expected values for several institutes can be compared with one another or with a set of randomly selected publications. Besides the institutes, the regression models include factors which can be assumed to have a general influence on citation counts (e.g., the number of authors).
  10. 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) 0.00 
    0.0041575036 = product of:
  0.02494502 = sum of:
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=3160,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3160, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3160)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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).
  11. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.00 
    0.0041575036 = product of:
  0.02494502 = sum of:
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  12. Bornmann, L.; Haunschild, R.: ¬An empirical look at the nature index (2017) 0.00 
    0.0041575036 = product of:
  0.02494502 = sum of:
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 3432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=3432,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3432, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3432)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  13. Bornmann, L.: On the function of university rankings (2014) 0.00 
    0.003864266 = product of:
  0.023185596 = sum of:
    0.023185596 = product of:
      0.06955679 = sum of:
        0.06955679 = weight(_text_:29 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06955679 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    29. 1.2014 16:55:03
  14. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.00 
    0.0038295041 = product of:
  0.022977024 = sum of:
    0.022977024 = product of:
      0.06893107 = sum of:
        0.06893107 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06893107 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  15. Bornmann, L.: Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review (2015) 0.00 
    0.0034634217 = product of:
  0.02078053 = sum of:
    0.02078053 = product of:
      0.06234159 = sum of:
        0.06234159 = weight(_text_:system in 2328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06234159 = score(doc=2328,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.46686378 = fieldWeight in 2328, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2328)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a postpublication peer review system of the biomedical literature (papers from medical and biological journals). This study is concerned with the interrater reliability and convergent validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on about 100,000 papers with recommendations from faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies that have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the convergent validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also associated with higher performing papers.
  16. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.00 
    0.002553003 = product of:
  0.015318017 = sum of:
    0.015318017 = product of:
      0.045954052 = sum of:
        0.045954052 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045954052 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  17. Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: Distributions instead of single numbers : percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers (2014) 0.00 
    0.002254155 = product of:
  0.01352493 = sum of:
    0.01352493 = product of:
      0.04057479 = sum of:
        0.04057479 = weight(_text_:29 in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04057479 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    29. 1.2014 15:58:21
  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) 0.00 
    0.0019147521 = product of:
  0.011488512 = sum of:
    0.011488512 = product of:
      0.034465536 = sum of:
        0.034465536 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034465536 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:44:17
  19. 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 
    0.0015956269 = product of:
  0.009573761 = sum of:
    0.009573761 = product of:
      0.028721282 = sum of:
        0.028721282 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028721282 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
  20. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps (2012) 0.00 
    0.0015488893 = product of:
  0.0092933355 = sum of:
    0.0092933355 = product of:
      0.027880006 = sum of:
        0.027880006 = weight(_text_:system in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027880006 = score(doc=288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    A technique is developed using patent information available online (at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) for the generation of Google Maps. The overlays indicate both the quantity and the quality of patents at the city level. This information is relevant for research questions in technology analysis, innovation studies, and evolutionary economics, as well as economic geography. The resulting maps can also be relevant for technological innovation policies and research and development management, because the U.S. market can be considered the leading market for patenting and patent competition. In addition to the maps, the routines provide quantitative data about the patents for statistical analysis. The cities on the map are colored according to the results of significance tests. The overlays are explored for the Netherlands as a "national system of innovations" and further elaborated in two cases of emerging technologies: ribonucleic acid interference (RNAi) and nanotechnology.

Authors

Years

Themes