-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.10
0.10452529 = product of:
0.15678793 = sum of:
0.023928396 = weight(_text_:of in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023928396 = score(doc=1239,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.13285953 = sum of:
0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0480099 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1239, 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=1239)
0.084849626 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084849626 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867
-
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)
0.08
0.07561446 = product of:
0.113421686 = sum of:
0.029067779 = weight(_text_:of in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029067779 = score(doc=4186,freq=34.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
34.0 = termFreq=34.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.08435391 = sum of:
0.048999898 = weight(_text_:science in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048999898 = score(doc=4186,freq=12.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3564397 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03535401 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.07
0.07207365 = product of:
0.10811047 = sum of:
0.019537456 = weight(_text_:of in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019537456 = score(doc=1431,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.088573016 = sum of:
0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0320066 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056566417 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Properties of a percentile-based rating scale needed in bibliometrics are formulated. Based on these properties, P100 was recently introduced as a new citation-rank approach (Bornmann, Leydesdorff, & Wang, 2013). In this paper, we conceptualize P100 and propose an improvement which we call P100'. Advantages and disadvantages of citation-rank indicators are noted.
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1939-1943
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.07
0.06875047 = product of:
0.1031257 = sum of:
0.02675276 = weight(_text_:of in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02675276 = score(doc=4681,freq=20.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.07637294 = sum of:
0.033948127 = weight(_text_:science in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948127 = score(doc=4681,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042424813 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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
-
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)
0.06
0.06120644 = product of:
0.09180966 = sum of:
0.025379896 = weight(_text_:of in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025379896 = score(doc=656,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
0.066429764 = sum of:
0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02400495 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 656, 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=656)
0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042424813 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- According to current research in bibliometrics, percentiles (or percentile rank classes) are the most suitable method for normalizing the citation counts of individual publications in terms of the subject area, the document type, and the publication year. Up to now, bibliometric research has concerned itself primarily with the calculation of percentiles. This study suggests how percentiles (and percentile rank classes) can be analyzed meaningfully for an evaluation study. Publication sets from four universities are compared with each other to provide sample data. These suggestions take into account on the one hand the distribution of percentiles over the publications in the sets (universities here) and on the other hand concentrate on the range of publications with the highest citation impact-that is, the range that is usually of most interest in the evaluation of scientific performance.
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:44:17
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.587-595
-
Bornmann, L.: ¬The reception of publications by scientists in the early days of modern science (2014)
0.04
0.04216954 = product of:
0.06325431 = sum of:
0.029306183 = weight(_text_:of in 1509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029306183 = score(doc=1509,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1509, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1509)
0.033948127 = product of:
0.067896254 = sum of:
0.067896254 = weight(_text_:science in 1509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067896254 = score(doc=1509,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 1509, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1509)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2160-2161
-
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)
0.04
0.039552018 = product of:
0.059328023 = sum of:
0.025379896 = weight(_text_:of in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025379896 = score(doc=2779,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.033948127 = product of:
0.067896254 = sum of:
0.067896254 = weight(_text_:science in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.067896254 = score(doc=2779,freq=16.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
- Aid
- Web of Science
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013)
0.04
0.03822746 = product of:
0.057341192 = sum of:
0.03050284 = weight(_text_:of in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03050284 = score(doc=1108,freq=26.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.026838351 = product of:
0.053676702 = sum of:
0.053676702 = weight(_text_:science in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053676702 = score(doc=1108,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.11, S.2299-2309
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: Growth rates of modern science : a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015)
0.04
0.038207076 = product of:
0.05731061 = sum of:
0.027304424 = weight(_text_:of in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027304424 = score(doc=2261,freq=30.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
30.0 = termFreq=30.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
0.030006185 = product of:
0.06001237 = sum of:
0.06001237 = weight(_text_:science in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06001237 = score(doc=2261,freq=18.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.4365477 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Many studies (in information science) have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we reexamine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (a) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (b) analyze the data across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with an advanced statistical technique-segmented regression analysis-which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (a) the number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (b) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three essential growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars, and 8 to 9% to 2010.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.11, S.2215-2222
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Cardona, M.: Reference standards and reference multipliers for the comparison of the citation impact of papers published in different time periods (2010)
0.03
0.033710122 = product of:
0.05056518 = sum of:
0.028199887 = weight(_text_:of in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028199887 = score(doc=3998,freq=32.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
32.0 = termFreq=32.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
0.022365293 = product of:
0.044730585 = sum of:
0.044730585 = weight(_text_:science in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044730585 = score(doc=3998,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2061-20690
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors : an alternative research design with policy implications (2011)
0.03
0.033710122 = product of:
0.05056518 = sum of:
0.028199887 = weight(_text_:of in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028199887 = score(doc=4919,freq=32.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
32.0 = termFreq=32.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
0.022365293 = product of:
0.044730585 = sum of:
0.044730585 = weight(_text_:science in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044730585 = score(doc=4919,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2133-2146
-
Bornmann, L.; Bauer, J.: Which of the world's institutions employ the most highly cited researchers : an analysis of the data from highlycited.com (2015)
0.03
0.033228777 = product of:
0.049843162 = sum of:
0.033839863 = weight(_text_:of in 1556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033839863 = score(doc=1556,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 1556, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1556)
0.0160033 = product of:
0.0320066 = sum of:
0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 1556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0320066 = score(doc=1556,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 1556, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1556)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In 2014, Thomson Reuters published a list of the most highly cited researchers worldwide (highlycited.com). Because the data are freely available for downloading and include the names of the researchers' institutions, we produced a ranking of the institutions on the basis of the number of highly cited researchers per institution. This ranking is intended to be a helpful amendment of other available institutional rankings.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2146-2148
-
Bornmann, L.; Bauer, J.: Which of the world's institutions employ the most highly cited researchers : an analysis of the data from highlycited.com (2015)
0.03
0.033228777 = product of:
0.049843162 = sum of:
0.033839863 = weight(_text_:of in 2223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033839863 = score(doc=2223,freq=18.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 2223, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2223)
0.0160033 = product of:
0.0320066 = sum of:
0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 2223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0320066 = score(doc=2223,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 2223, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2223)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In 2014, Thomson Reuters published a list of the most highly cited researchers worldwide (highlycited.com). Because the data are freely available for downloading and include the names of the researchers' institutions, we produced a ranking of the institutions on the basis of the number of highly cited researchers per institution. This ranking is intended to be a helpful amendment of other available institutional rankings.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2146-2148
-
Bornmann, L.: What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? : a literature survey (2013)
0.03
0.032418907 = product of:
0.04862836 = sum of:
0.031654295 = weight(_text_:of in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031654295 = score(doc=606,freq=28.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 606, product of:
5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
28.0 = termFreq=28.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=606)
0.016974064 = product of:
0.033948127 = sum of:
0.033948127 = weight(_text_:science in 606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033948127 = score(doc=606,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 606, 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=606)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Since the 1990s, the scope of research evaluations becomes broader as the societal products (outputs), societal use (societal references), and societal benefits (changes in society) of research come into scope. Society can reap the benefits of successful research studies only if the results are converted into marketable and consumable products (e.g., medicaments, diagnostic tools, machines, and devices) or services. A series of different names have been introduced which refer to the societal impact of research: third stream activities, societal benefits, societal quality, usefulness, public values, knowledge transfer, and societal relevance. What most of these names are concerned with is the assessment of social, cultural, environmental, and economic returns (impact and effects) from results (research output) or products (research outcome) of publicly funded research. This review intends to present existing research on and practices employed in the assessment of societal impact in the form of a literature survey. The objective is for this review to serve as a basis for the development of robust and reliable methods of societal impact measurement.
- Series
- Advances in information science
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.2, S.217-233
-
Bornmann, L.: Nature's top 100 revisited (2015)
0.03
0.032153625 = product of:
0.048230436 = sum of:
0.019940332 = weight(_text_:of in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019940332 = score(doc=2351,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
0.028290104 = product of:
0.05658021 = sum of:
0.05658021 = weight(_text_:science in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05658021 = score(doc=2351,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 2351, 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=2351)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Content
- Bezug: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2714. Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23554/abstract.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2166
-
Bornmann, L.: On the function of university rankings (2014)
0.03
0.031955566 = product of:
0.047933348 = sum of:
0.023928396 = weight(_text_:of in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023928396 = score(doc=1188,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
0.02400495 = product of:
0.0480099 = sum of:
0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0480099 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 1188, 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=1188)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.428-429
-
Bornmann, L.; Bauer, J.; Haunschild, R.: Distribution of women and men among highly cited scientists (2015)
0.03
0.031955566 = product of:
0.047933348 = sum of:
0.023928396 = weight(_text_:of in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023928396 = score(doc=2349,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
0.02400495 = product of:
0.0480099 = sum of:
0.0480099 = weight(_text_:science in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0480099 = score(doc=2349,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 2349, 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=2349)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2715-2716
-
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)
0.03
0.03185622 = product of:
0.04778433 = sum of:
0.025419034 = weight(_text_:of in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025419034 = score(doc=532,freq=26.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
0.022365293 = product of:
0.044730585 = sum of:
0.044730585 = weight(_text_:science in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044730585 = score(doc=532,freq=10.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.32538348 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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.
- Aid
- Science Citation Index
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.96-107
-
Collins, H.; Bornmann, L.: On scientific misconduct (2014)
0.03
0.031830467 = product of:
0.047745697 = sum of:
0.01973992 = weight(_text_:of in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01973992 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1247, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1247)
0.028005775 = product of:
0.05601155 = sum of:
0.05601155 = weight(_text_:science in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05601155 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1247, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1247)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1089-1090
-
Bornmann, L.: Scientific peer review (2011)
0.03
0.031830467 = product of:
0.047745697 = sum of:
0.01973992 = weight(_text_:of in 1600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01973992 = score(doc=1600,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1600, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1600)
0.028005775 = product of:
0.05601155 = sum of:
0.05601155 = weight(_text_:science in 1600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05601155 = score(doc=1600,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1600, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1600)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.197-245
