Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Zhao, D."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.: Dimensions and uncertainties of author citation rankings : lessons learned from frequency-weighted in-text citation counting (2016) 0.01 
    0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=2774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2774)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In-text frequency-weighted citation counting has been seen as a particularly promising solution to the well-known problem of citation analysis that it treats all citations equally, be they crucial to the citing paper or perfunctory. But what is a good weighting scheme? We compare 12 different in-text citation frequency-weighting schemes in the field of library and information science (LIS) and explore author citation impact patterns based on their performance in these schemes. Our results show that the ranks of authors vary widely with different weighting schemes that favor or are biased against common citation impact patterns-substantiated, applied, or noted. These variations separate LIS authors quite clearly into groups with these impact patterns. With consensus rank limits, the hard upper and lower bounds for reasonable author ranks that they provide suggest that author citation ranks may be subject to something like an uncertainty principle.
  2. Zhao, D.; Strotmann, A.; Cappello, A.: In-text function of author self-citations : implications for research evaluation practice (2018) 0.01 
    0.0057428335 = product of:
  0.022971334 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 4347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=4347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 4347, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4347)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Author self-citations were examined as to their function, frequency, and location in the full text of research articles and compared with external citations. Function analysis was based on manual coding of a small dataset in the field of library and information studies, whereas the analyses by frequency and location used both this small dataset and a large dataset from PubMed Central. Strong evidence was found that self-citations appear more likely to serve as substantial citations in a text than do external citations. This finding challenges previous studies that assumed that self-citations should be discounted or even removed and suggests that self-citations should be given more weight in citation analysis, if anything.

Authors