-
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)
0.03
0.03226404 = product of:
0.06452808 = sum of:
0.06452808 = sum of:
0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02921053 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531755 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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)
- Abstract
- The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.02
0.02119053 = product of:
0.04238106 = sum of:
0.04238106 = product of:
0.08476212 = sum of:
0.08476212 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08476212 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.014127021 = product of:
0.028254041 = sum of:
0.028254041 = product of:
0.056508083 = sum of:
0.056508083 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056508083 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
0.010595265 = product of:
0.02119053 = sum of:
0.02119053 = product of:
0.04238106 = sum of:
0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04238106 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
0.010595265 = product of:
0.02119053 = sum of:
0.02119053 = product of:
0.04238106 = sum of:
0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04238106 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
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)
0.01
0.00876316 = product of:
0.01752632 = sum of:
0.01752632 = product of:
0.03505264 = sum of:
0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03505264 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Zhou, P.; Bornmann, L.: How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? : An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts (2013)
0.01
0.0073026326 = product of:
0.014605265 = sum of:
0.014605265 = product of:
0.02921053 = sum of:
0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02921053 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mingers, J.: Statistical significance and effect sizes of differences among research universities at the level of nations and worldwide based on the Leiden rankings (2019)
0.01
0.0073026326 = product of:
0.014605265 = sum of:
0.014605265 = product of:
0.02921053 = sum of:
0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 5225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02921053 = score(doc=5225,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.05213454 = queryNorm
0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5225, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5225)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The Leiden Rankings can be used for grouping research universities by considering universities which are not statistically significantly different as homogeneous sets. The groups and intergroup relations can be analyzed and visualized using tools from network analysis. Using the so-called "excellence indicator" PPtop-10%-the proportion of the top-10% most-highly-cited papers assigned to a university-we pursue a classification using (a) overlapping stability intervals, (b) statistical-significance tests, and (c) effect sizes of differences among 902 universities in 54 countries; we focus on the UK, Germany, Brazil, and the USA as national examples. Although the groupings remain largely the same using different statistical significance levels or overlapping stability intervals, these classifications are uncorrelated with those based on effect sizes. Effect sizes for the differences between universities are small (w < .2). The more detailed analysis of universities at the country level suggests that distinctions beyond three or perhaps four groups of universities (high, middle, low) may not be meaningful. Given similar institutional incentives, isomorphism within each eco-system of universities should not be underestimated. Our results suggest that networks based on overlapping stability intervals can provide a first impression of the relevant groupings among universities. However, the clusters are not well-defined divisions between groups of universities.
