-
Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B.; Rousseau, R.: Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient (2003)
0.02
0.018409979 = product of:
0.055229932 = sum of:
0.0484596 = weight(_text_:ranking in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0484596 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.23904754 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.0067703333 = product of:
0.020311 = sum of:
0.020311 = weight(_text_:22 in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020311 = score(doc=5171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Ahlgren, Jarneving, and. Rousseau review accepted procedures for author co-citation analysis first pointing out that since in the raw data matrix the row and column values are identical i,e, the co-citation count of two authors, there is no clear choice for diagonal values. They suggest the number of times an author has been co-cited with himself excluding self citation rather than the common treatment as zeros or as missing values. When the matrix is converted to a similarity matrix the normal procedure is to create a matrix of Pearson's r coefficients between data vectors. Ranking by r and by co-citation frequency and by intuition can easily yield three different orders. It would seem necessary that the adding of zeros to the matrix will not affect the value or the relative order of similarity measures but it is shown that this is not the case with Pearson's r. Using 913 bibliographic descriptions form the Web of Science of articles form JASIS and Scientometrics, authors names were extracted, edited and 12 information retrieval authors and 12 bibliometric authors each from the top 100 most cited were selected. Co-citation and r value (diagonal elements treated as missing) matrices were constructed, and then reconstructed in expanded form. Adding zeros can both change the r value and the ordering of the authors based upon that value. A chi-squared distance measure would not violate these requirements, nor would the cosine coefficient. It is also argued that co-citation data is ordinal data since there is no assurance of an absolute zero number of co-citations, and thus Pearson is not appropriate. The number of ties in co-citation data make the use of the Spearman rank order coefficient problematic.
- Date
- 9. 7.2006 10:22:35
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Rousseau, S.: TOP-curves (2007)
0.01
0.014134051 = product of:
0.084804304 = sum of:
0.084804304 = weight(_text_:ranking in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084804304 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Several characteristics of classical Lorenz curves make them unsuitable for the study of a group of topperformers. TOP-curves, defined as a kind of mirror image of TIP-curves used in poverty studies, are shown to possess the properties necessary for adequate empirical ranking of various data arrays, based on the properties of the highest performers (i.e., the core). TOP-curves and essential TOP-curves, also introduced in this article, simultaneously represent the incidence, intensity, and inequality among the top. It is shown that TOPdominance partial order, introduced in this article, is stronger than Lorenz dominance order. In this way, this article contributes to the study of cores, a central issue in applied informetrics.
-
Rousseau, R.: Basic properties of both percentile rank scores and the I3 indicator (2012)
0.01
0.014134051 = product of:
0.084804304 = sum of:
0.084804304 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084804304 = score(doc=4993,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.4183332 = fieldWeight in 4993, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4993)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- We introduce the notions of congruous indicator of relative performance and congruous indicator of absolute performance. These notions are very similar to the notions of independence and consistency, yet slightly different. It is shown that percentile rank scores, as recently introduced by Leydesdorff, Bornmann, Mutz, and Opthof (2011), are strictly congruous indicators of relative performance, and similarly, that the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3), introduced by Leydesdorff and Bornmann (2011), is a strictly congruous indicator of absolute performance. Our analysis highlights the challenge of finding adequate axioms for ranking and for research evaluation.
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.; Hooydonk, G. van: Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries : consequences for evaluation studies (2000)
0.01
0.0121149 = product of:
0.0726894 = sum of:
0.0726894 = weight(_text_:ranking in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0726894 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.35857132 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance
-
Rousseau, R.; Zuccala, A.: ¬A classification of author co-citations : definitions and search strategies (2004)
0.01
0.010095751 = product of:
0.0605745 = sum of:
0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0605745 = score(doc=2266,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 2266, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2266)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- The term author co-citation is defined and classified according to four distinct forms: the pure first-author co-citation, the pure author co-citation, the general author co-citation, and the special co-authorlco-citation. Each form can be used to obtain one count in an author co-citation study, based an a binary counting rule, which either recognizes the co-citedness of two authors in a given reference list (1) or does not (0). Most studies using author co-citations have relied solely an first-author cocitation counts as evidence of an author's oeuvre or body of work contributed to a research field. In this article, we argue that an author's contribution to a selected field of study should not be limited, but should be based an his/her complete list of publications, regardless of author ranking. We discuss the implications associated with using each co-citation form and show where simple first-author co-citations fit within our classification scheme. Examples are given to substantiate each author co-citation form defined in our classification, including a set of sample Dialog(TM) searches using references extracted from the SciSearch database.
-
Rousseau, R.: Journal evaluation : technical and practical issues (2002)
0.01
0.010095751 = product of:
0.0605745 = sum of:
0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0605745 = score(doc=816,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 816, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=816)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- This essay provides an overview of journal evaluation indicators. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different indicators, together with their range of applicability. The definition of a "quality journal," different notions of impact factors, the meaning of ranking journals, and possible biases in citation databases are also discussed. Attention is given to using the journal impact in evaluation studies. The quality of a journal is a multifaceted notion. Journals can be evaluated for different purposes, and hence the results of such evaluation exercises can be quite different depending on the indicator(s) used. The impact factor, in one of its versions, is probably the most used indicator when it comes to gauging the visibility of a journal on the research front. Generalized impact factors, over periods longer than the traditional two years, are better indicators for the long-term value of a journal. As with all evaluation studies, care must be exercised when considering journal impact factors as a quality indicator. It seems best to use a whole battery of indicators (including several impact factors) and to change this group of indicators depending on the purpose of the evaluation study. Nowadays it goes without saying that special attention is paid to e-journals and specific indicators for this type of journal.
-
Egghe, L.; Guns, R.; Rousseau, R.; Leuven, K.U.: Erratum (2012)
0.00
0.0028209724 = product of:
0.016925834 = sum of:
0.016925834 = product of:
0.050777502 = sum of:
0.050777502 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050777502 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 14. 2.2012 12:53:22
-
Rousseau, R.: Timelines in citation research (2006)
0.00
0.0022772634 = product of:
0.013663581 = sum of:
0.013663581 = product of:
0.04099074 = sum of:
0.04099074 = weight(_text_:29 in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04099074 = score(doc=1746,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 18. 8.2006 14:29:40
-
Liu, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Citation analysis and the development of science : a case study using articles by some Nobel prize winners (2014)
0.00
0.0022772634 = product of:
0.013663581 = sum of:
0.013663581 = product of:
0.04099074 = sum of:
0.04099074 = weight(_text_:29 in 1197) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04099074 = score(doc=1197,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1197, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1197)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 16:31:35
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Introduction to informetrics : quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science (1990)
0.00
0.0019926056 = product of:
0.011955633 = sum of:
0.011955633 = product of:
0.035866898 = sum of:
0.035866898 = weight(_text_:29 in 1515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035866898 = score(doc=1515,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1515, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1515)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 29. 2.2008 19:02:46
-
Frandsen, T.F.; Rousseau, R.: Article impact calculated over arbitrary periods (2005)
0.00
0.0017079476 = product of:
0.010247685 = sum of:
0.010247685 = product of:
0.030743055 = sum of:
0.030743055 = weight(_text_:29 in 3264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030743055 = score(doc=3264,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3264, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3264)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 20. 3.2005 10:29:08
-
Liang, L.; Rousseau, R.: Yield sequences as journal attractivity indicators : "payback times" for Science and Nature (2008)
0.00
0.0017079476 = product of:
0.010247685 = sum of:
0.010247685 = product of:
0.030743055 = sum of:
0.030743055 = weight(_text_:29 in 1737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030743055 = score(doc=1737,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1737, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1737)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 21. 3.2008 14:29:54
-
Colebunders, R.; Kenyon, C.; Rousseau, R.: Increase in numbers and proportions of review articles in Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, and oncology (2014)
0.00
0.0017079476 = product of:
0.010247685 = sum of:
0.010247685 = product of:
0.030743055 = sum of:
0.030743055 = weight(_text_:29 in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030743055 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 15:56:36
-
Shi, D.; Rousseau, R.; Yang, L.; Li, J.: ¬A journal's impact factor is influenced by changes in publication delays of citing journals (2017)
0.00
0.0017079476 = product of:
0.010247685 = sum of:
0.010247685 = product of:
0.030743055 = sum of:
0.030743055 = weight(_text_:29 in 3441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030743055 = score(doc=3441,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 3441, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3441)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 16.11.2017 13:29:52
-
Egghe, L.; Rousseau, R.: Averaging and globalising quotients of informetric and scientometric data (1996)
0.00
0.0016925833 = product of:
0.0101555 = sum of:
0.0101555 = product of:
0.030466499 = sum of:
0.030466499 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030466499 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, 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=7659)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170
-
Asonuma, A.; Fang, Y.; Rousseau, R.: Reflections on the age distribution of Japanese scientists (2006)
0.00
0.0016925833 = product of:
0.0101555 = sum of:
0.0101555 = product of:
0.030466499 = sum of:
0.030466499 = weight(_text_:22 in 5270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030466499 = score(doc=5270,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13124153 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5270, 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=5270)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 15:26:24
-
Yang, B.; Rousseau, R.; Wang, X.; Huang, S.: How important is scientific software in bioinformatics research? : a comparative study between international and Chinese research communities (2018)
0.00
0.0014232898 = product of:
0.008539738 = sum of:
0.008539738 = product of:
0.025619213 = sum of:
0.025619213 = weight(_text_:29 in 4461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025619213 = score(doc=4461,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13183585 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.03747799 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4461, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4461)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 29. 9.2018 12:36:19
