Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.079162665 = product of:
  0.19790666 = sum of:
    0.1630111 = weight(_text_:index in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1630111 = score(doc=4147,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.72419286 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
    0.03489555 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03489555 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.

Date

8. 1.2011 19:22:13

Object

h-index

0.029160315 = product of:
  0.14580157 = sum of:
    0.14580157 = weight(_text_:index in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14580157 = score(doc=780,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.64773786 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The recently developed h-index has been applied to the literature produced by senior British-based academics in librarianship and information science. The majority of those evaluated currently hold senior positions in UK information science and librarianship departments; however, a small number of staff in other departments and retired "founding fathers" were analyzed as well. The analysis was carried out using the Web of Science (Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) for the years from 1992 to October 2005, and included both secondauthored papers and self-citations. The top-ranking British information scientist, Peter Willett, has an h-index of 31. However, it was found that Eugene Garfield, the founder of modern citation studies, has an even higher h-index of 36. These results support other studies suggesting that the h-index is a useful tool in the armory of bibliometrics.

0.018442601 = product of:
  0.092213005 = sum of:
    0.092213005 = weight(_text_:index in 6896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092213005 = score(doc=6896,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 6896, 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=6896)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Citation indexes are based on the principle of authors citing previous articles of relevance. The paper demonstrates the long history of citing for precedent and notes how ISI's citation indexes differ from 'Shephards Citations'. The paper analyses some of the criticisms of citations counting, and some of the uses for which citation analysis has been employed. The paper also examines the idea of the development of an Acknowledgement Index, and concludes such an index is unlikely to be commercially viable. The paper describes a citation study of Eugene Garfield, and concludes that he may be the most heavily cited information scientist, that he is a heavy self-citer, and that the reasons why other authors cite Garfield are different from the reasons why he cites himself. The paper concludes that citation studies remain a valid methgod of analysis of individuals', institutions', or journals' impact, but need to be used with caution and in conjunction with other measures

0.011166576 = product of:
  0.05583288 = sum of:
    0.05583288 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05583288 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, 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=7245)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22

0.011166576 = product of:
  0.05583288 = sum of:
    0.05583288 = weight(_text_:22 in 7670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05583288 = score(doc=7670,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7670, 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=7670)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.6, S.407-421

0.010867408 = product of:
  0.054337036 = sum of:
    0.054337036 = weight(_text_:index in 4465) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054337036 = score(doc=4465,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4465, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4465)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross-disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross-disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.

0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=42,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 42, 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=42)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information studies. 3(1997) no.1, S.5-22

0.008374932 = product of:
  0.04187466 = sum of:
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, 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=3662)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

8. 7.2010 19:22:45