Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  1. Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.; Leydesdorff, L.: BRICS countries and scientific excellence : a bibliometric analysis of most frequently cited papers (2015) 0.01 
    0.005950221 = product of:
  0.059502207 = sum of:
    0.059502207 = product of:
      0.08925331 = sum of:
        0.03442287 = weight(_text_:1990 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03442287 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.248977 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
        0.054830432 = weight(_text_:2010 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054830432 = score(doc=2047,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.37368357 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US.
  2. 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) 0.00 
    0.0020434097 = product of:
  0.020434096 = sum of:
    0.020434096 = product of:
      0.06130229 = sum of:
        0.06130229 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06130229 = score(doc=3998,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.41779095 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.10, S.2061-20690
    Year
    2010
  3. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.00 
    0.0016624887 = product of:
  0.016624887 = sum of:
    0.016624887 = product of:
      0.04987466 = sum of:
        0.04987466 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04987466 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  4. 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) 0.00 
    0.0015508389 = product of:
  0.015508389 = sum of:
    0.015508389 = product of:
      0.046525165 = sum of:
        0.046525165 = weight(_text_:2010 in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046525165 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.31708103 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    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.
  5. 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) 0.00 
    0.0012923657 = product of:
  0.012923657 = sum of:
    0.012923657 = product of:
      0.03877097 = sum of:
        0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877097 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    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.
  6. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: Growth rates of modern science : a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015) 0.00 
    0.0012923657 = product of:
  0.012923657 = sum of:
    0.012923657 = product of:
      0.03877097 = sum of:
        0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 2261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03877097 = score(doc=2261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 2261, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2261)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    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.
  7. Bornmann, L.; Ye, A.; Ye, F.: Identifying landmark publications in the long run using field-normalized citation data (2018) 0.00 
    0.0011474291 = product of:
  0.011474291 = sum of:
    0.011474291 = product of:
      0.03442287 = sum of:
        0.03442287 = weight(_text_:1990 in 4196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03442287 = score(doc=4196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.248977 = fieldWeight in 4196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4196)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to propose an approach for identifying landmark papers in the long run. These publications reach a very high level of citation impact and are able to remain on this level across many citing years. In recent years, several studies have been published which deal with the citation history of publications and try to identify landmark publications. Design/methodology/approach In contrast to other studies published hitherto, this study is based on a broad data set with papers published between 1980 and 1990 for identifying the landmark papers. The authors analyzed the citation histories of about five million papers across 25 years. Findings The results of this study reveal that 1,013 papers (less than 0.02 percent) are "outstandingly cited" in the long run. The cluster analyses of the papers show that they received the high impact level very soon after publication and remained on this level over decades. Only a slight impact decline is visible over the years. Originality/value For practical reasons, approaches for identifying landmark papers should be as simple as possible. The approach proposed in this study is based on standard methods in bibliometrics.
  8. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.00 
    0.0011083259 = product of:
  0.011083259 = sum of:
    0.011083259 = product of:
      0.033249777 = sum of:
        0.033249777 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033249777 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  9. Bornmann, L.; Moya Anegón, F.de: What proportion of excellent papers makes an institution one of the best worldwide? : Specifying thresholds for the interpretation of the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking and the Leiden Ranking (2014) 0.00 
    0.0010176711 = product of:
  0.010176711 = sum of:
    0.010176711 = product of:
      0.03053013 = sum of:
        0.03053013 = weight(_text_:problem in 1235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03053013 = score(doc=1235,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 1235, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1235)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    University rankings generally present users with the problem of placing the results given for an institution in context. Only a comparison with the performance of all other institutions makes it possible to say exactly where an institution stands. In order to interpret the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking (based on Scopus data) and the Leiden Ranking (based on Web of Science data), in this study we offer thresholds with which it is possible to assess whether an institution belongs to the top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, top 25%, or top 50% of institutions in the world. The thresholds are based on the excellence rate or PPtop 10%. Both indicators measure the proportion of an institution's publications which belong to the 10% most frequently cited publications and are the most important indicators for measuring institutional impact. For example, while an institution must achieve a value of 24.63% in the Leiden Ranking 2013 to be considered one of the top 1% of institutions worldwide, the SCImago Institutions Ranking requires 30.2%.
  10. 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) 0.00 
    8.3124434E-4 = product of:
  0.008312443 = sum of:
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:44:17
  11. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.00 
    8.3124434E-4 = product of:
  0.008312443 = sum of:
    0.008312443 = product of:
      0.02493733 = sum of:
        0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02493733 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
  12. 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) 0.00 
    6.927037E-4 = product of:
  0.0069270367 = sum of:
    0.0069270367 = product of:
      0.02078111 = sum of:
        0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02078111 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03067635 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07

Authors

Themes