Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.054424506 = product of:
  0.10884901 = sum of:
    0.10884901 = sum of:
      0.06652461 = weight(_text_:international in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06652461 = score(doc=4681,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17368206 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05206484 = queryNorm
          0.38302523 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.0423244 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0423244 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1823222 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05206484 = 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)

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

0.0211622 = product of:
  0.0423244 = sum of:
    0.0423244 = product of:
      0.0846488 = sum of:
        0.0846488 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0846488 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1823222 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206484 = 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

0.014108134 = product of:
  0.028216269 = sum of:
    0.028216269 = product of:
      0.056432538 = sum of:
        0.056432538 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056432538 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1823222 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206484 = 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

0.012802666 = product of:
  0.025605332 = sum of:
    0.025605332 = product of:
      0.051210664 = sum of:
        0.051210664 = weight(_text_:international in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051210664 = score(doc=2381,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17368206 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206484 = queryNorm
            0.2948529 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.

Content

Vgl. auch: Erratum Re: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Agewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(2008) no.12, S.2037-2038.

0.0105811 = product of:
  0.0211622 = sum of:
    0.0211622 = product of:
      0.0423244 = sum of:
        0.0423244 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0423244 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1823222 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206484 = 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

0.008817584 = product of:
  0.017635169 = sum of:
    0.017635169 = product of:
      0.035270337 = sum of:
        0.035270337 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035270337 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1823222 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206484 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2011 12:51:07

0.0080016665 = product of:
  0.016003333 = sum of:
    0.016003333 = product of:
      0.032006666 = sum of:
        0.032006666 = weight(_text_:international in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032006666 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17368206 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206484 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientists may seek to report a single definable body of research in more than one publication, that is, in repeated reports of the same work or in fractional reports, in order to disseminate their research as widely as possible in the scientific community. Up to now, however, it has not been examined whether this strategy of "multiple publication" in fact leads to greater reception of the research. In the present study, we investigate the influence of number of articles reporting the results of a single study on reception in the scientific community (total citation counts of an article on a single study). Our data set consists of 96 applicants for a research fellowship from the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF), an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. The applicants reported to us all articles that they had published within the framework of their doctoral research projects. On this single project, the applicants had published from 1 to 16 articles (M = 4; Mdn = 3). The results of a regression model with an interaction term show that the practice of multiple publication of research study results does in fact lead to greater reception of the research (higher total citation counts) in the scientific community. However, reception is dependent upon length of article: the longer the article, the more total citation counts increase with the number of articles. Thus, it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports.

0.0080016665 = product of:
  0.016003333 = sum of:
    0.016003333 = product of:
      0.032006666 = sum of:
        0.032006666 = weight(_text_:international in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032006666 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17368206 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206484 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a recently published PNAS paper, Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008) propose the relative indicator cf as an unbiased indicator for citation performance across disciplines (fields, subject areas). To calculate cf, the citation rate for a single paper is divided by the average number of citations for all papers in the discipline in which the single paper has been categorized. cf values are said to lead to a universality of discipline-specific citation distributions. Using a comprehensive dataset of an evaluation study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), we tested the advantage of using this indicator in practical application at the micro level, as compared with (1) simple citation rates, and (2) z-scores, which have been used in psychological testing for many years for normalization of test scores. To calculate z-scores, the mean number of citations of the papers within a discipline is subtracted from the citation rate of a single paper, and the difference is then divided by the citations' standard deviation for a discipline. Our results indicate that z-scores are better suited than cf values to produce universality of discipline-specific citation distributions.

0.0080016665 = product of:
  0.016003333 = sum of:
    0.016003333 = product of:
      0.032006666 = sum of:
        0.032006666 = weight(_text_:international in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032006666 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17368206 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05206484 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since the 1990s, with the heightened competition and the strong growth of the international higher education market, an increasing number of rankings have been created that measure the scientific performance of an institution based on data. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 (LR) was published early in 2012. Starting from Goldstein and Spiegelhalter's (1996) recommendations for conducting quantitative comparisons among institutions, in this study we undertook a reformulation of the LR by means of multilevel regression models. First, with our models we replicated the ranking results; second, the reanalysis of the LR data showed that only 5% of the PPtop10% total variation is attributable to differences between universities. Beyond that, about 80% of the variation between universities can be explained by differences among countries. If covariates are included in the model the differences among most of the universities become meaningless. Our findings have implications for conducting university rankings in general and for the LR in particular. For example, with Goldstein-adjusted confidence intervals, it is possible to interpret the significance of differences among universities meaningfully: Rank differences among universities should be interpreted as meaningful only if their confidence intervals do not overlap.