-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996)
0.04
0.037068095 = product of:
0.12973833 = sum of:
0.113659285 = weight(_text_:global in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.113659285 = score(doc=7659,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19788647 = queryWeight, product of:
5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
0.0395589 = queryNorm
0.57436615 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
0.016079053 = product of:
0.032158107 = sum of:
0.032158107 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032158107 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13852853 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0395589 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- It is possible, using ISI's Journal Citation Report (JCR), to calculate average impact factors (AIF) for LCR's subject categories but it can be more useful to know the global Impact Factor (GIF) of a subject category and compare the 2 values. Reports results of a study to compare the relationships between AIFs and GIFs of subjects, based on the particular case of the average impact factor of a subfield versus the impact factor of this subfield as a whole, the difference being studied between an average of quotients, denoted as AQ, and a global average, obtained as a quotient of averages, and denoted as GQ. In the case of impact factors, AQ becomes the average impact factor of a field, and GQ becomes its global impact factor. Discusses a number of applications of this technique in the context of informetrics and scientometrics
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
-
Jin, B.; Li, L.; Rousseau, R.: Long-term influences of interventions in the normal development of science : China and the cultural revolution (2004)
0.02
0.017928086 = product of:
0.1254966 = sum of:
0.1254966 = weight(_text_:brain in 2232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.1254966 = score(doc=2232,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2736591 = queryWeight, product of:
6.9177637 = idf(docFreq=118, maxDocs=44218)
0.0395589 = queryNorm
0.4585873 = fieldWeight in 2232, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.9177637 = idf(docFreq=118, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2232)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Intellectual and technological talents and skills are the driving force for scientific and industrial development, especially in our times characterized by a knowledgebased economy. Major events in society and related political decisions, however, can have a long-term effect an a country's scientific weIl-being. Although the Cultural Revolution took place from 1966 to 1976, its aftermath can still be felt. This is shown by this study of the production and productivity of Chinese scientists as a function of their age. Based an the 1995-2000 data from the Chinese Science Citation database (CSCD), this article investigates the year-by-year age distribution of scientific and technological personnel publishing in China. It is shown that the "Talent Fault" originating during the Cultural Revolution still exists, and that a new gap resulting from recent brain drain might be developing. The purpose of this work is to provide necessary information about the current situation and especially the existing problems of the S&T workforce in China.
-
Rousseau, S.; Rousseau, R.: Interactions between journal attributes and authors' willingness to wait for editorial decisions (2012)
0.01
0.009526528 = product of:
0.0666857 = sum of:
0.0666857 = weight(_text_:personal in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0666857 = score(doc=250,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19948503 = queryWeight, product of:
5.0427346 = idf(docFreq=775, maxDocs=44218)
0.0395589 = queryNorm
0.33428922 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.0427346 = idf(docFreq=775, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- In this article, we report on a discrete choice experiment to determine the willingness-to-wait (WTW) in the context of journal submissions. Respondents to our survey are mostly active in the information sciences, including librarians. Besides WTW, other attributes included in the study are the quality of the editorial board, the quality of referee reports, the probability of being accepted, the ISI impact factor, and the standing of the journal among peers. Interaction effects originating from scientists' personal characteristics (age, region of origin, motivations to publish) with the WTW are highlighted. A difference was made between submitting a high quality article and a standard article. Among the interesting results obtained from our analysis we mention that for a high-quality article, researchers are willing to wait some 18 months longer for a journal with an ISI impact factor above 2 than for a journal without an impact factor, keeping all other factors constant. For a standard article, the WTW decreases to some 8 months. Gender had no effect on our conclusions.
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Aging, obsolescence, impact, growth, and utilization : definitions and relations (2000)
0.01
0.009374459 = product of:
0.06562121 = sum of:
0.06562121 = weight(_text_:global in 5154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06562121 = score(doc=5154,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19788647 = queryWeight, product of:
5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
0.0395589 = queryNorm
0.3316104 = fieldWeight in 5154, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5154)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- The notions aging, obsolescence, impact, growth, utilization, and their relations are studied. It is shown how to correct an observed citation distribution for growth, once the growth distribution is known. The relation of this correction procedure with the calculation of impact measures is explained. More interestingly, we have shown how the influence of growth on aging can be studied over a complete period as a whole. Here, the difference between the so-called average and global aging distributions is the main factor. Our main result is that growth can influence aging but that it does not cause aging. A short overview of some classical articles on this topic is given. Results of these earlier works are placed in the framework set up in this article
-
Rousseau, R.: Informetric laws (2009)
0.01
0.00893258 = product of:
0.06252806 = sum of:
0.06252806 = weight(_text_:ed in 3795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06252806 = score(doc=3795,freq=4.0), product of:
0.140671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
0.0395589 = queryNorm
0.4444986 = fieldWeight in 3795, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3795)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Rousseau, R.; Egghe, L.; Guns, R.: Becoming metric-wise : a bibliometric guide for researchers (2018)
0.01
0.0078120497 = product of:
0.054684345 = sum of:
0.054684345 = weight(_text_:global in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054684345 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19788647 = queryWeight, product of:
5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
0.0395589 = queryNorm
0.276342 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.002325 = idf(docFreq=807, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- Aims to inform researchers about metrics so that they become aware of the evaluative techniques being applied to their scientific output. Understanding these concepts will help them during their funding initiatives, and in hiring and tenure. The book not only describes what indicators do (or are designed to do, which is not always the same thing), but also gives precise mathematical formulae so that indicators can be properly understood and evaluated. Metrics have become a critical issue in science, with widespread international discussion taking place on the subject across scientific journals and organizations. As researchers should know the publication-citation context, the mathematical formulae of indicators being used by evaluating committees and their consequences, and how such indicators might be misused, this book provides an ideal tome on the topic. Provides researchers with a detailed understanding of bibliometric indicators and their applications. Empowers researchers looking to understand the indicators relevant to their work and careers. Presents an informed and rounded picture of bibliometrics, including the strengths and shortcomings of particular indicators. Supplies the mathematics behind bibliometric indicators so they can be properly understood. Written by authors with longstanding expertise who are considered global leaders in the field of bibliometrics
-
Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012)
0.00
0.0038283467 = product of:
0.026798425 = sum of:
0.026798425 = product of:
0.05359685 = sum of:
0.05359685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05359685 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13852853 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0395589 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 14. 2.2012 12:53:22
-
Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006)
0.00
0.0022970077 = product of:
0.016079053 = sum of:
0.016079053 = product of:
0.032158107 = sum of:
0.032158107 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032158107 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13852853 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0395589 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:26:24
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.00
0.0015313386 = product of:
0.010719369 = sum of:
0.010719369 = product of:
0.021438738 = sum of:
0.021438738 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021438738 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13852853 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0395589 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
