Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02

0.01679609 = product of:
  0.08398045 = sum of:
    0.08398045 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08398045 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18088265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051653754 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 18. 3.2014 19:13:22

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) 0.01
```
0.011658204 = product of:
  0.058291018 = sum of:
    0.058291018 = weight(_text_:cd in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058291018 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21311972 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051653754 = queryNorm
        0.27351302 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
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.

Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.01

0.011197394 = product of:
  0.055986967 = sum of:
    0.055986967 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055986967 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18088265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051653754 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 22. 8.2014 17:05:18

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) 0.01
```
0.009715169 = product of:
  0.048575845 = sum of:
    0.048575845 = weight(_text_:cd in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048575845 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21311972 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051653754 = queryNorm
        0.2279275 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.125929 = idf(docFreq=1940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
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.

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) 0.01

0.008398045 = product of:
  0.041990224 = sum of:
    0.041990224 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041990224 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18088265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051653754 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 22. 3.2013 19:44:17

Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.01

0.008398045 = product of:
  0.041990224 = sum of:
    0.041990224 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041990224 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18088265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051653754 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 8. 1.2019 18:22:45

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) 0.01

0.006998371 = product of:
  0.034991853 = sum of:
    0.034991853 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034991853 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18088265 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051653754 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 22. 1.2011 12:51:07

Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors

Themes