-
Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012)
0.02
0.017635169 = product of:
0.035270337 = sum of:
0.035270337 = product of:
0.070540674 = sum of:
0.070540674 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.070540674 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1823222 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05206484 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 14. 2.2012 12:53:22
-
Yang, B.; Rousseau, R.; Wang, X.; Huang, S.: How important is scientific software in bioinformatics research? : a comparative study between international and Chinese research communities (2018)
0.02
0.016003333 = product of:
0.032006666 = sum of:
0.032006666 = product of:
0.06401333 = sum of:
0.06401333 = weight(_text_:international in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06401333 = score(doc=4461,freq=8.0), product of:
0.17368206 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.05206484 = queryNorm
0.36856616 = fieldWeight in 4461, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4461)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Software programs are among the most important tools in data-driven research. The popularity of well-known packages and corresponding large numbers of citations received bear testimony of the contribution of scientific software to academic research. Yet software is not generally recognized as an academic outcome. In this study, a usage-based model is proposed with varied indicators including citations, mentions, and downloads to measure the importance of scientific software. We performed an investigation on a sample of international bioinformatics research articles, and on a sample from the Chinese community. Our analysis shows that scientists in the field of bioinformatics rely heavily on scientific software: the major differences between the international community and the Chinese example being how scientific packages are mentioned in publications and the time gap between the introduction of a package and its use. Biologists publishing in international journals tend to apply the latest tools earlier; Chinese scientists publishing in Chinese tend to follow later. Further, journals with higher impact factors tend to publish articles applying the latest tools earlier.
-
Rousseau, R.; Ding, J.: Does international collaboration yield a higher citation potential for US scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary Journals? (2016)
0.02
0.015842492 = product of:
0.031684984 = sum of:
0.031684984 = product of:
0.06336997 = sum of:
0.06336997 = weight(_text_:international in 2860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06336997 = score(doc=2860,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17368206 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.05206484 = queryNorm
0.36486188 = fieldWeight in 2860, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2860)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Generally, multicountry papers receive more citations than single-country ones. In this contribution, we examine if this rule also applies to American scientists publishing in highly visible interdisciplinary journals. Concretely, we compare the citations received by American scientists in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It is shown that, statistically, American scientists publishing in Nature and Science do not benefit from international collaboration. This statement also holds for communicated submissions, but not for direct and for contributed submissions, to PNAS.
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996)
0.01
0.0105811 = product of:
0.0211622 = sum of:
0.0211622 = product of:
0.0423244 = sum of:
0.0423244 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0423244 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1823222 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05206484 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
-
Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006)
0.01
0.0105811 = product of:
0.0211622 = sum of:
0.0211622 = product of:
0.0423244 = sum of:
0.0423244 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0423244 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1823222 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05206484 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:26:24
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000)
0.01
0.009601999 = product of:
0.019203998 = sum of:
0.019203998 = product of:
0.038407996 = sum of:
0.038407996 = weight(_text_:international in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038407996 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17368206 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.05206484 = queryNorm
0.22113968 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance
-
Rousseau, R.; Egghe, L.; Guns, R.: Becoming metric-wise : a bibliometric guide for researchers (2018)
0.01
0.0080016665 = product of:
0.016003333 = sum of:
0.016003333 = product of:
0.032006666 = sum of:
0.032006666 = weight(_text_:international in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032006666 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17368206 = queryWeight, product of:
3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
0.05206484 = queryNorm
0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 5226, 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=5226)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- 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
-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.01
0.007054067 = product of:
0.014108134 = sum of:
0.014108134 = product of:
0.028216269 = sum of:
0.028216269 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028216269 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1823222 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05206484 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
