-
Egghe, L.; Bornmann, L.: Fallout and miss in journal peer review (2013)
0.01
0.014385968 = product of:
0.050350886 = sum of:
0.012685482 = weight(_text_:information in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012685482 = score(doc=1759,freq=4.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1759, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1759)
0.037665404 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037665404 = score(doc=1759,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1759, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1759)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The authors exploit the analogy between journal peer review and information retrieval in order to quantify some imperfections of journal peer review. Design/methodology/approach - The authors define fallout rate and missing rate in order to describe quantitatively the weak papers that were accepted and the strong papers that were missed, respectively. To assess the quality of manuscripts the authors use bibliometric measures. Findings - Fallout rate and missing rate are put in relation with the hitting rate and success rate. Conclusions are drawn on what fraction of weak papers will be accepted in order to have a certain fraction of strong accepted papers. Originality/value - The paper illustrates that these curves are new in peer review research when interpreted in the information retrieval terminology.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016)
0.01
0.010915946 = product of:
0.03820581 = sum of:
0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015377128 = score(doc=2779,freq=8.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.022828683 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022828683 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
-
Bornmann, L.: On the function of university rankings (2014)
0.01
0.010273903 = product of:
0.03595866 = sum of:
0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015377128 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
0.020581532 = product of:
0.061744597 = sum of:
0.061744597 = weight(_text_:29 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061744597 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 16:55:03
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.428-429
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.01
0.0102210045 = product of:
0.035773516 = sum of:
0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015377128 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
0.020396389 = product of:
0.061189163 = sum of:
0.061189163 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061189163 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = 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)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.01
0.0068140035 = product of:
0.02384901 = sum of:
0.010251419 = weight(_text_:information in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010251419 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
0.013597593 = product of:
0.040792778 = sum of:
0.040792778 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040792778 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = 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)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1939-1943
-
Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: Distributions instead of single numbers : percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers (2014)
0.01
0.00599311 = product of:
0.020975884 = sum of:
0.0089699915 = weight(_text_:information in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0089699915 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
0.0120058935 = product of:
0.03601768 = sum of:
0.03601768 = weight(_text_:29 in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03601768 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1190, 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=1190)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 29. 1.2014 15:58:21
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.206-208
-
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
0.0051105022 = product of:
0.017886758 = sum of:
0.007688564 = weight(_text_:information in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007688564 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
0.0101981945 = product of:
0.030594582 = sum of:
0.030594582 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030594582 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = 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)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:44:17
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.587-595
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.01
0.0051105022 = product of:
0.017886758 = sum of:
0.007688564 = weight(_text_:information in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007688564 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
0.0101981945 = product of:
0.030594582 = sum of:
0.030594582 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030594582 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = 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)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
-
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
0.0050170156 = product of:
0.017559554 = sum of:
0.009061059 = weight(_text_:information in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009061059 = score(doc=4186,freq=4.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
0.008498495 = product of:
0.025495486 = sum of:
0.025495486 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025495486 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = 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)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Abstract
- The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229
-
Bornmann, L.; Schier, H.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-D.: Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? : a study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes (2011)
0.00
0.004280793 = product of:
0.014982775 = sum of:
0.006407136 = weight(_text_:information in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006407136 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
0.008575639 = product of:
0.025726916 = sum of:
0.025726916 = weight(_text_:29 in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025726916 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 4132, 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=4132)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
- Date
- 8. 1.2011 18:29:40
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.61-71
-
Bornmann, L.: Nature's top 100 revisited (2015)
0.00
0.0025888742 = product of:
0.018122118 = sum of:
0.018122118 = weight(_text_:information in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018122118 = score(doc=2351,freq=4.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Content
- Bezug: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2714. Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23554/abstract.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2166
-
Collins, H.; Bornmann, L.: On scientific misconduct (2014)
0.00
0.002562855 = product of:
0.017939983 = sum of:
0.017939983 = weight(_text_:information in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017939983 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1247, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1247)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1089-1090
-
Bornmann, L.: Scientific peer review (2011)
0.00
0.002562855 = product of:
0.017939983 = sum of:
0.017939983 = weight(_text_:information in 1600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017939983 = score(doc=1600,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1600, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1600)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.197-245
-
Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Statistical tests and research assessments : a comment on Schneider (2012) (2013)
0.00
0.0021967327 = product of:
0.015377128 = sum of:
0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015377128 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1306-1308
-
Bornmann, L.: Is there currently a scientific revolution in Scientometrics? (2014)
0.00
0.0021967327 = product of:
0.015377128 = sum of:
0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015377128 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.3, S.647-648
-
Bornmann, L.: ¬The reception of publications by scientists in the early days of modern science (2014)
0.00
0.0021967327 = product of:
0.015377128 = sum of:
0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 1509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015377128 = score(doc=1509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1509)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2160-2161
-
Bornmann, L.; Bauer, J.; Haunschild, R.: Distribution of women and men among highly cited scientists (2015)
0.00
0.0021967327 = product of:
0.015377128 = sum of:
0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015377128 = score(doc=2349,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2715-2716
-
Bornmann, L.: What do altmetrics counts mean? : a plea for content analyses (2016)
0.00
0.0021967327 = product of:
0.015377128 = sum of:
0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015377128 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.1016-1017
-
Besselaar, P. van den; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Correct assumptions? (2016)
0.00
0.0021967327 = product of:
0.015377128 = sum of:
0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 3020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015377128 = score(doc=3020,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3020, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3020)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1779
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Replicability and the public/private divide (2016)
0.00
0.0021967327 = product of:
0.015377128 = sum of:
0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015377128 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.037635546 = queryNorm
0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1777-1778
