Search (878 results, page 2 of 44)

0.04283164 = product of:
  0.1070791 = sum of:
    0.06520444 = weight(_text_:index in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06520444 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
    0.04187466 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04187466 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18038483 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.042591367 = product of:
  0.21295683 = sum of:
    0.21295683 = weight(_text_:index in 1207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21295683 = score(doc=1207,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.94608164 = fieldWeight in 1207, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1207)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The h-index, as originally proposed (Hirsch, 2005), is a purely heuristic construction. Burrell (2013) showed that efforts to derive formulae from the mathematical framework of Lotkaian informetrics could lead to misleading results. On this note, we argue that a simple heuristic "thermodynamical" model can enable a better three-dimensional (3D) evaluation of the information production process leading to what we call the zynergy-index.

Object

h-index
zynergy-index.

0.042591367 = product of:
  0.21295683 = sum of:
    0.21295683 = weight(_text_:index in 2350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21295683 = score(doc=2350,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.94608164 = fieldWeight in 2350, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2350)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

I discuss how, given a certain number of articles and citations of these articles, the h-index and the g-index are affected by the level of concentration of the citations. This offers the opportunity for a comparison between these 2 indices from a new perspective.

Object

g-index
h-index

0.041238915 = product of:
  0.20619456 = sum of:
    0.20619456 = weight(_text_:index in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20619456 = score(doc=40,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.91603965 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis), the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.

Object

h-index

0.040907037 = product of:
  0.20453517 = sum of:
    0.20453517 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20453517 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43671587 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.

0.040907037 = product of:
  0.20453517 = sum of:
    0.20453517 = weight(_text_:3a in 4388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20453517 = score(doc=4388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43671587 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4388)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Vgl. unter: https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwizweHljdbcAhVS16QKHXcFD9QQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F271200105_Die_Autonomie_des_Menschen_und_der_Maschine_-_gegenwartige_Definitionen_von_Autonomie_zwischen_philosophischem_Hintergrund_und_technologischer_Umsetzbarkeit_Redigierte_Version_der_Magisterarbeit_Karls&usg=AOvVaw06orrdJmFF2xbCCp_hL26q.

0.040907037 = product of:
  0.20453517 = sum of:
    0.20453517 = weight(_text_:3a in 855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.20453517 = score(doc=855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.43671587 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=855)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vgl. auch: New automatic interpreter for complex UDC numbers. Unter: <https%3A%2F%2Fudcc.org%2Ffiles%2FAttilaPiros_EC_36-37_2014-2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3kc9CwDDCWP7aArpfjrs5b>

0.039182995 = product of:
  0.19591497 = sum of:
    0.19591497 = weight(_text_:index in 3428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19591497 = score(doc=3428,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.8703715 = fieldWeight in 3428, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3428)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Based on the principles of the h-index, I propose a new measure, the w-index, as a particularly simple and more useful way to assess the substantial impact of a researcher's work, especially regarding excellent papers. The w-index can be defined as follows: If w of a researcher's papers have at least 10w citations each and the other papers have fewer than 10(w+1) citations, that researcher's w-index is w. The results demonstrate that there are noticeable differences between the w-index and the h-index, because the w-index plays close attention to the more widely cited papers. These discrepancies can be measured by comparing the ranks of 20 astrophysicists, a few famous physical scientists, and 16 Price medalists. Furthermore, I put forward the w(q)-index to improve the discriminatory power of the w-index and to rank scientists with the same w. The factor q is the least number of citations a researcher with w needed to reach w+1. In terms of both simplicity and accuracy, the w-index or w(q)-index can be widely used for evaluation of scientists, journals, conferences, scientific topics, research institutions, and so on.

Object

W-index

0.039182995 = product of:
  0.19591497 = sum of:
    0.19591497 = weight(_text_:index in 2684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19591497 = score(doc=2684,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.8703715 = fieldWeight in 2684, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2684)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this work we develop new journal classification methods based on the h-index. The introduction of the h-index for research evaluation has attracted much attention in the bibliometric study and research quality evaluation. The main purpose of using an h-index is to compare the index for different research units (e.g. researchers, journals, etc.) to differentiate their research performance. However the h-index is defined by only comparing citations counts of one's own publications, it is doubtful that the h index alone should be used for reliable comparisons among different research units, like researchers or journals. In this paper we propose a new global h-index (Gh-index), where the publications in the core are selected in comparison with all the publications of the units to be evaluated. Furthermore, we introduce some variants of the Gh-index to address the issue of discrimination power. We show that together with the original h-index, they can be used to evaluate and classify academic journals with some distinct advantages, in particular that they can produce an automatic classification into a number of categories without arbitrary cut-off points. We then carry out an empirical study for classification of operations research and management science (OR/MS) journals using this index, and compare it with other well-known journal ranking results such as the Association of Business Schools (ABS) Journal Quality Guide and the Committee of Professors in OR (COPIOR) ranking lists.

Object

h-index

0.039122667 = product of:
  0.19561332 = sum of:
    0.19561332 = weight(_text_:index in 3332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19561332 = score(doc=3332,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.8690314 = fieldWeight in 3332, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3332)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The specific impact index, or s-index, is introduced as a measure of a scientist's projected impact per paper. The index is complementary to other indices that measure overall impact as it can distinguish between authors maximizing the quantity of their output and authors maximizing the quality of their output. It also can be used to monitor career progress. The main advantage of the new index is that it reduces age bias from older papers that have more time to accumulate citations than do more recent papers. The index was tested on 24 scientists in different fields and of different statures. The overall projected impact estimated from the index correlates well with Hirsch's h-index squared (r**2=0.99). The impact of different aging models was evaluated as well.

Object

h-index

0.03888042 = product of:
  0.1944021 = sum of:
    0.1944021 = weight(_text_:index in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1944021 = score(doc=1563,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.86365044 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The h-index has been shown to increase in many cases mostly because of citations to rather old publications. This inertia can be circumvented by restricting the evaluation to a citation time window. Here I report results of an empirical study analyzing the evolution of the thus defined timed h-index in dependence on the length of the citation time window.

Object

h-index

0.03764581 = product of:
  0.18822904 = sum of:
    0.18822904 = weight(_text_:index in 854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18822904 = score(doc=854,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.037267443 = product of:
  0.18633722 = sum of:
    0.18633722 = weight(_text_:index in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18633722 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.82782143 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.

Object

h-index

0.037267443 = product of:
  0.18633722 = sum of:
    0.18633722 = weight(_text_:index in 4571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18633722 = score(doc=4571,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = queryNorm
        0.82782143 = fieldWeight in 4571, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4571)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An innovative approach is proposed for a rating system for academic publications based on a categorization into ratings comparable to financial ratings such as Moody's and S&P ratings (AAA, AA, A, BA, BBB, BB, B, C). The categorization makes use of a variable percentile approach based on recently developed h-related indices. Building on this categorization, a new index is proposed for researchers, the fame-index or f2-index. This new index integrates some qualitative elements related to the influence of a researcher's articles. It better mitigates than the classic h-index.

0.036885202 = product of:
  0.18442601 = sum of:
    0.18442601 = weight(_text_:index in 3594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18442601 = score(doc=3594,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

h-index

0.036885202 = product of:
  0.18442601 = sum of:
    0.18442601 = weight(_text_:index in 4949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18442601 = score(doc=4949,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

h-index

0.036885202 = product of:
  0.18442601 = sum of:
    0.18442601 = weight(_text_:index in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18442601 = score(doc=287,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

h-index

0.036885202 = product of:
  0.18442601 = sum of:
    0.18442601 = weight(_text_:index in 454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18442601 = score(doc=454,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

h-index

0.036885202 = product of:
  0.18442601 = sum of:
    0.18442601 = weight(_text_:index in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18442601 = score(doc=683,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

h-index

0.036885202 = product of:
  0.18442601 = sum of:
    0.18442601 = weight(_text_:index in 976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18442601 = score(doc=976,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2250935 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051511593 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Object

h-index