-
Wan, X.; Liu, F.: Are all literature citations equally important? : automatic citation strength estimation and its applications (2014)
0.12
0.11569073 = product of:
0.17353609 = sum of:
0.04066598 = weight(_text_:science in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04066598 = score(doc=1350,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.13287011 = sum of:
0.09137568 = weight(_text_:index in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09137568 = score(doc=1350,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 1350, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1350)
0.04149442 = weight(_text_:22 in 1350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04149442 = score(doc=1350,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = 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)
- Abstract
- Literature citation analysis plays a very important role in bibliometrics and scientometrics, such as the Science Citation Index (SCI) impact factor, h-index. Existing citation analysis methods assume that all citations in a paper are equally important, and they simply count the number of citations. Here we argue that the citations in a paper are not equally important and some citations are more important than the others. We use a strength value to assess the importance of each citation and propose to use the regression method with a few useful features for automatically estimating the strength value of each citation. Evaluation results on a manually labeled data set in the computer science field show that the estimated values can achieve good correlation with human-labeled values. We further apply the estimated citation strength values for evaluating paper influence and author influence, and the preliminary evaluation results demonstrate the usefulness of the citation strength values.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:12:35
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1929-1938
-
Zhang, C.-T.: Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index (2010)
0.11
0.109531924 = product of:
0.16429788 = sum of:
0.023478512 = weight(_text_:science in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023478512 = score(doc=3418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
0.14081937 = product of:
0.28163874 = sum of:
0.28163874 = weight(_text_:index in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.28163874 = score(doc=3418,freq=38.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
1.2626734 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
38.0 = termFreq=38.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.
- Object
- h-index
g-index
e-index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.3, S.625-628
-
Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011)
0.10
0.10367221 = product of:
0.15550831 = sum of:
0.027669692 = weight(_text_:science in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027669692 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.12783861 = sum of:
0.09325992 = weight(_text_:index in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09325992 = score(doc=4635,freq=6.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.418113 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.034578685 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034578685 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = 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)
- 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.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1614-1628
-
Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015)
0.10
0.101811826 = product of:
0.15271774 = sum of:
0.027669692 = weight(_text_:science in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027669692 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.12504804 = sum of:
0.0761464 = weight(_text_:index in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0761464 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.048901644 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048901644 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
17. 9.2018 18:22:23
-
Hovden, R.: Bibliometrics for Internet media : applying the h-index to YouTube (2013)
0.10
0.10159801 = product of:
0.152397 = sum of:
0.027391598 = weight(_text_:science in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027391598 = score(doc=1111,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
0.12500541 = product of:
0.25001082 = sum of:
0.25001082 = weight(_text_:index in 1111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.25001082 = score(doc=1111,freq=22.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
1.1208756 = fieldWeight in 1111, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1111)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The h-index can be a useful metric for evaluating a person's output of Internet media. Here I advocate and demonstrate adaption of the h-index and the g-index to the top video content creators on YouTube. The h-index for Internet video media is based on videos and their view counts. The h-index is defined as the number of videos with >=h × 10**5 views. The g-index is defined as the number of videos with >=g × 10**5 views on average. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric.
- Object
- h-index
g-index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2326-2331
-
Calculating the h-index : Web of Science, Scopus or Google Scholar? (2011)
0.10
0.09906621 = product of:
0.14859931 = sum of:
0.055339385 = weight(_text_:science in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055339385 = score(doc=854,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
0.09325992 = product of:
0.18651985 = sum of:
0.18651985 = weight(_text_:index in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18651985 = score(doc=854,freq=6.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.836226 = fieldWeight in 854, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=854)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Gegenüberstellung der Berechnung des h-Index in den drei Tools mit Beispiel Stephen Hawking (WoS: 59, Scopus: 19, Google Scholar: 76)
- Object
- h-index
Web of Science
-
Vaughan, L.; Chen, Y.: Data mining from web search queries : a comparison of Google trends and Baidu index (2015)
0.10
0.098269366 = product of:
0.14740404 = sum of:
0.019565428 = weight(_text_:science in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019565428 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
0.12783861 = sum of:
0.09325992 = weight(_text_:index in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09325992 = score(doc=1605,freq=6.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.418113 = fieldWeight in 1605, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1605)
0.034578685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034578685 = score(doc=1605,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1605, 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=1605)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Numerous studies have explored the possibility of uncovering information from web search queries but few have examined the factors that affect web query data sources. We conducted a study that investigated this issue by comparing Google Trends and Baidu Index. Data from these two services are based on queries entered by users into Google and Baidu, two of the largest search engines in the world. We first compared the features and functions of the two services based on documents and extensive testing. We then carried out an empirical study that collected query volume data from the two sources. We found that data from both sources could be used to predict the quality of Chinese universities and companies. Despite the differences between the two services in terms of technology, such as differing methods of language processing, the search volume data from the two were highly correlated and combining the two data sources did not improve the predictive power of the data. However, there was a major difference between the two in terms of data availability. Baidu Index was able to provide more search volume data than Google Trends did. Our analysis showed that the disadvantage of Google Trends in this regard was due to Google's smaller user base in China. The implication of this finding goes beyond China. Google's user bases in many countries are smaller than that in China, so the search volume data related to those countries could result in the same issue as that related to China.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.1, S.13-22
-
Shah, T.A.; Gul, S.; Gaur, R.C.: Authors self-citation behaviour in the field of Library and Information Science (2015)
0.09
0.094687626 = product of:
0.14203143 = sum of:
0.03354772 = weight(_text_:science in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03354772 = score(doc=2597,freq=12.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.24950781 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
0.10848371 = sum of:
0.08427863 = weight(_text_:index in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08427863 = score(doc=2597,freq=10.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.37784708 = fieldWeight in 2597, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2597)
0.02420508 = weight(_text_:22 in 2597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02420508 = score(doc=2597,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = 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)
- 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
-
Boerner, K.: Atlas of science : visualizing what we know (2010)
0.09
0.09382485 = product of:
0.14073727 = sum of:
0.069999404 = weight(_text_:science in 3359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.069999404 = score(doc=3359,freq=40.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.52061355 = fieldWeight in 3359, product of:
6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
40.0 = termFreq=40.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3359)
0.07073785 = sum of:
0.043074906 = weight(_text_:index in 3359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043074906 = score(doc=3359,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 3359, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3359)
0.027662948 = weight(_text_:22 in 3359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027662948 = score(doc=3359,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3359, 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=3359)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Cartographic maps have guided our explorations for centuries, allowing us to navigate the world. Science maps have the potential to guide our search for knowledge in the same way, helping us navigate, understand, and communicate the dynamic and changing structure of science and technology. Allowing us to visualize scientific results, science maps help us make sense of the avalanche of data generated by scientific research today. Atlas of Science, features more than thirty full-page science maps, fifty data charts, a timeline of science-mapping milestones, and 500 color images; it serves as a sumptuous visual index to the evolution of modern science and as an introduction to "the science of science"--charting the trajectory from scientific concept to published results. Atlas of Science, based on the popular exhibit "Places & Spaces: Mapping Science," describes and displays successful mapping techniques. The heart of the book is a visual feast: Claudius Ptolemy's Cosmographia World Map from 1482; a guide to a PhD thesis that resembles a subway map; "the structure of science" as revealed in a map of citation relationships in papers published in 2002; a periodic table; a history flow visualization of the Wikipedia article on abortion; a globe showing the worldwide distribution of patents; a forecast of earthquake risk; hands-on science maps for kids; and many more. Each entry includes the story behind the map and biographies of its makers. Not even the most brilliant minds can keep up with today's deluge of scientific results. Science maps show us the landscape of what we know. Exhibition Ongoing National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. The Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance, Bonn, Germany Storm Hall, San Diego State College
- Date
- 22. 1.2017 17:12:16
- LCSH
- Communication in science
Science
- Subject
- Communication in science
Science
-
Crispo, E.: ¬A new index to use in conjunction with the h-index to account for an author's relative contribution to publications with high impact (2015)
0.09
0.09364216 = product of:
0.14046323 = sum of:
0.027391598 = weight(_text_:science in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027391598 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
0.113071635 = product of:
0.22614327 = sum of:
0.22614327 = weight(_text_:index in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.22614327 = score(doc=2264,freq=18.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
1.01387 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The h-index was devised to represent a scholar's contributions to his field with respect to the number of publications and citations. It does not, however, take into consideration the scholar's position in the authorship list. I recommend a new supplementary index to score academics, representing the relative contribution to the papers with impact, be reported alongside the h-index. I call this index the AP-index, and it is simply defined as the average position in which an academic appears in authorship lists, on articles that factor in to that academic's h-index.
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2381-2383
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.09
0.09287362 = product of:
0.13931042 = sum of:
0.03320363 = weight(_text_:science in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03320363 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.10610678 = sum of:
0.06461236 = weight(_text_:index in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06461236 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.04149442 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04149442 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17874686 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
-
Engqvist, L.; Frommen, J.G.: New insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations? (2010)
0.09
0.0922218 = product of:
0.1383327 = sum of:
0.046957023 = weight(_text_:science in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046957023 = score(doc=3594,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
0.09137568 = product of:
0.18275136 = sum of:
0.18275136 = weight(_text_:index in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18275136 = score(doc=3594,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 3594, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3594)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.7, S.1514-1516
-
Jaric, I.: ¬The use of h-index for the assessment of journals' performance will lead to shifts in editorial policies (2011)
0.09
0.0922218 = product of:
0.1383327 = sum of:
0.046957023 = weight(_text_:science in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046957023 = score(doc=4949,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
0.09137568 = product of:
0.18275136 = sum of:
0.18275136 = weight(_text_:index in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18275136 = score(doc=4949,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 4949, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4949)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.12, S.2546
-
Prathap, G.: ¬The inconsistency of the H-index (2012)
0.09
0.0922218 = product of:
0.1383327 = sum of:
0.046957023 = weight(_text_:science in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046957023 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
0.09137568 = product of:
0.18275136 = sum of:
0.18275136 = weight(_text_:index in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18275136 = score(doc=287,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1466-1470
-
Bartolucci, F.: On a possible decomposition of the h-index. (2012)
0.09
0.0922218 = product of:
0.1383327 = sum of:
0.046957023 = weight(_text_:science in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046957023 = score(doc=454,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 454, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=454)
0.09137568 = product of:
0.18275136 = sum of:
0.18275136 = weight(_text_:index in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18275136 = score(doc=454,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 454, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=454)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.10, S.2126-2127
-
Egghe, L.: Note on a possible decomposition of the h-Index (2013)
0.09
0.0922218 = product of:
0.1383327 = sum of:
0.046957023 = weight(_text_:science in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046957023 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
0.09137568 = product of:
0.18275136 = sum of:
0.18275136 = weight(_text_:index in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18275136 = score(doc=683,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.871
-
Bertoli-Barsotti, L.: Improving a decomposition of the h-index (2013)
0.09
0.0922218 = product of:
0.1383327 = sum of:
0.046957023 = weight(_text_:science in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046957023 = score(doc=976,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
0.09137568 = product of:
0.18275136 = sum of:
0.18275136 = weight(_text_:index in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18275136 = score(doc=976,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 976, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=976)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1522
-
Pillay, A.: Academic promotion and the h-index (2013)
0.09
0.0922218 = product of:
0.1383327 = sum of:
0.046957023 = weight(_text_:science in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046957023 = score(doc=1087,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1087, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1087)
0.09137568 = product of:
0.18275136 = sum of:
0.18275136 = weight(_text_:index in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18275136 = score(doc=1087,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 1087, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1087)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.12, S.2598-2599
-
Egghe, L.: ¬The Hirsch index and related impact measures (2010)
0.09
0.0922218 = product of:
0.1383327 = sum of:
0.046957023 = weight(_text_:science in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046957023 = score(doc=1597,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
0.09137568 = product of:
0.18275136 = sum of:
0.18275136 = weight(_text_:index in 1597) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18275136 = score(doc=1597,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 1597, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1597)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Object
- h-index
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 44(2010) no.1, S.65-114
-
Rousseau, R.: Egghe's g-index is not a proper concentration measure (2015)
0.09
0.0922218 = product of:
0.1383327 = sum of:
0.046957023 = weight(_text_:science in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046957023 = score(doc=1864,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13445559 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
0.09137568 = product of:
0.18275136 = sum of:
0.18275136 = weight(_text_:index in 1864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.18275136 = score(doc=1864,freq=4.0), product of:
0.22304957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.05104385 = queryNorm
0.8193307 = fieldWeight in 1864, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1864)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Object
- g-index
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1518-1519
