-
Scholarly metrics under the microscope : from citation analysis to academic auditing (2015)
0.03
0.028171634 = product of:
0.05634327 = sum of:
0.05634327 = product of:
0.0845149 = sum of:
0.0324685 = weight(_text_:12 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0324685 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.24447013 = fieldWeight in 4654, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4654)
0.052046396 = weight(_text_:22 in 4654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052046396 = score(doc=4654,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4654, 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=4654)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2017 17:12:50
-
Campanario, J.M.: Large increases and decreases in journal impact factors in only one year : the effect of journal self-citations (2011)
0.02
0.024650177 = product of:
0.049300354 = sum of:
0.049300354 = product of:
0.07395053 = sum of:
0.028409937 = weight(_text_:12 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028409937 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.21391137 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
0.045540594 = weight(_text_:22 in 4187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045540594 = score(doc=4187,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4187, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4187)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:53:00
-
Vieira, E.S.; Cabral, J.A.S.; Gomes, J.A.N.F.: Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions (2014)
0.02
0.024650177 = product of:
0.049300354 = sum of:
0.049300354 = product of:
0.07395053 = sum of:
0.028409937 = weight(_text_:12 in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028409937 = score(doc=1221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.21391137 = fieldWeight in 1221, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1221)
0.045540594 = weight(_text_:22 in 1221) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045540594 = score(doc=1221,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1221, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1221)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- A model based on a set of bibliometric indicators is proposed for the prediction of the ranking of applicants to an academic position as produced by a committee of peers. The results show that a very small number of indicators may lead to a robust prediction of about 75% of the cases. We start with 12 indicators to build a few composite indicators by factor analysis. Following a discrete choice model, we arrive at 3 comparatively good predicative models. We conclude that these models have a surprisingly good predictive power and may help peers in their selection process.
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 18:22:21
-
Ridenour, L.: Boundary objects : measuring gaps and overlap between research areas (2016)
0.02
0.024490949 = product of:
0.048981898 = sum of:
0.048981898 = product of:
0.07347284 = sum of:
0.034438048 = weight(_text_:12 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034438048 = score(doc=2835,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.25929976 = fieldWeight in 2835, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2835)
0.039034795 = weight(_text_:22 in 2835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039034795 = score(doc=2835,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2835, 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=2835)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The aim of this paper is to develop methodology to determine conceptual overlap between research areas. It investigates patterns of terminology usage in scientific abstracts as boundary objects between research specialties. Research specialties were determined by high-level classifications assigned by Thomson Reuters in their Essential Science Indicators file, which provided a strictly hierarchical classification of journals into 22 categories. Results from the query "network theory" were downloaded from the Web of Science. From this file, two top-level groups, economics and social sciences, were selected and topically analyzed to provide a baseline of similarity on which to run an informetric analysis. The Places & Spaces Map of Science (Klavans and Boyack 2007) was used to determine the proximity of disciplines to one another in order to select the two disciplines use in the analysis. Groups analyzed share common theories and goals; however, groups used different language to describe their research. It was found that 61% of term words were shared between the two groups.
- Date
- 12. 3.2016 14:00:12
-
Ajiferuke, I.; Lu, K.; Wolfram, D.: ¬A comparison of citer and citation-based measure outcomes for multiple disciplines (2010)
0.02
0.021128725 = product of:
0.04225745 = sum of:
0.04225745 = product of:
0.06338617 = sum of:
0.024351375 = weight(_text_:12 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024351375 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.1833526 = fieldWeight in 4000, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4000)
0.039034795 = weight(_text_:22 in 4000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039034795 = score(doc=4000,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4000, 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=4000)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 28. 9.2010 12:54:22
-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.02
0.021128725 = product of:
0.04225745 = sum of:
0.04225745 = product of:
0.06338617 = sum of:
0.024351375 = weight(_text_:12 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024351375 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.1833526 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.039034795 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039034795 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1350, 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=1350)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:12:35
-
Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016)
0.02
0.021128725 = product of:
0.04225745 = sum of:
0.04225745 = product of:
0.06338617 = sum of:
0.024351375 = weight(_text_:12 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024351375 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.1833526 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
0.039034795 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039034795 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, 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=2856)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:22:00
-
Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016)
0.02
0.021128725 = product of:
0.04225745 = sum of:
0.04225745 = product of:
0.06338617 = sum of:
0.024351375 = weight(_text_:12 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024351375 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.1833526 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
0.039034795 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039034795 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, 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=3211)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 16.11.2016 11:07:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3036-3050
-
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)
0.02
0.01760727 = product of:
0.03521454 = sum of:
0.03521454 = product of:
0.052821808 = sum of:
0.020292813 = weight(_text_:12 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020292813 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.15279384 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.032528996 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032528996 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011)
0.02
0.01760727 = product of:
0.03521454 = sum of:
0.03521454 = product of:
0.052821808 = sum of:
0.020292813 = weight(_text_:12 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020292813 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.15279384 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.032528996 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032528996 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
-
Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P.: ¬The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media : large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations (2015)
0.02
0.01760727 = product of:
0.03521454 = sum of:
0.03521454 = product of:
0.052821808 = sum of:
0.020292813 = weight(_text_:12 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020292813 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.15279384 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
0.032528996 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032528996 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, 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=2598)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Content
- Vgl.: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0173.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.01
0.013011599 = product of:
0.026023198 = sum of:
0.026023198 = product of:
0.07806959 = sum of:
0.07806959 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07806959 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Shah, T.A.; Gul, S.; Gaur, R.C.: Authors self-citation behaviour in the field of Library and Information Science (2015)
0.01
0.0123250885 = product of:
0.024650177 = sum of:
0.024650177 = product of:
0.036975265 = sum of:
0.014204969 = weight(_text_:12 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014204969 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.106955685 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
0.022770297 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022770297 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading "Information Science and Library Science" there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors' names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.0086744 = product of:
0.0173488 = sum of:
0.0173488 = product of:
0.052046396 = sum of:
0.052046396 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052046396 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
Ohly, P.: Dimensions of globality : a bibliometric analysis (2016)
0.01
0.0086744 = product of:
0.0173488 = sum of:
0.0173488 = product of:
0.052046396 = sum of:
0.052046396 = weight(_text_:22 in 4942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052046396 = score(doc=4942,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16815145 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4942, 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=4942)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2019 11:22:31
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The thermodynamics-bibliometrics consilience and the meaning of h-type indices (2012)
0.01
0.008117125 = product of:
0.01623425 = sum of:
0.01623425 = product of:
0.04870275 = sum of:
0.04870275 = weight(_text_:12 in 4990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04870275 = score(doc=4990,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.3667052 = fieldWeight in 4990, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4990)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 14. 2.2012 12:50:20
-
Bartolucci, F.: On a possible decomposition of the h-index. (2012)
0.01
0.008117125 = product of:
0.01623425 = sum of:
0.01623425 = product of:
0.04870275 = sum of:
0.04870275 = weight(_text_:12 in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04870275 = score(doc=454,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.3667052 = fieldWeight in 454, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=454)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 3.10.2012 12:03:10
-
Bornmann, L.; Bauer, J.; Haunschild, R.: Distribution of women and men among highly cited scientists (2015)
0.01
0.008117125 = product of:
0.01623425 = sum of:
0.01623425 = product of:
0.04870275 = sum of:
0.04870275 = weight(_text_:12 in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04870275 = score(doc=2349,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.3667052 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2715-2716
-
Torres-Salinas, D.; Robinson-García, N.: ¬The time for bibliometric applications (2016)
0.01
0.008117125 = product of:
0.01623425 = sum of:
0.01623425 = product of:
0.04870275 = sum of:
0.04870275 = weight(_text_:12 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04870275 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.3667052 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:38:13
-
Bornmann, L.: What do altmetrics counts mean? : a plea for content analyses (2016)
0.01
0.008117125 = product of:
0.01623425 = sum of:
0.01623425 = product of:
0.04870275 = sum of:
0.04870275 = weight(_text_:12 in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04870275 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13281173 = queryWeight, product of:
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.048018172 = queryNorm
0.3667052 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.765864 = idf(docFreq=7562, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 19. 3.2016 12:40:15
