Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0077411463 = product of:
  0.05418802 = sum of:
    0.05418802 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05418802 = score(doc=3312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.25315216 = fieldWeight in 3312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3312)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Inhalt: Metrics in Research - For better or worse? / Jozica Dolenc, Philippe Hünenberger Oliver Renn - A brief visual history of research metrics / Oliver Renn, Jozica Dolenc, Joachim Schnabl - Bibliometry: The wizard of O's / Philippe Hünenberger - The grip of bibliometrics - A student perspective / Matthias Tinzl - Honesty and transparency to taxpayers is the long-term fundament for stable university funding / Wendelin J. Stark - Beyond metrics: Managing the performance of your work / Charlie Rapple - Scientific profiling instead of bibliometrics: Key performance indicators of the future / Rafael Ball - More knowledge, less numbers / Carl Philipp Rosenau - Do we really need BIBLIO-metrics to evaluate individual researchers? / Rüdiger Mutz - Using research metrics responsibly and effectively as a researcher / Peter I. Darroch, Lisa H. Colledge - Metrics in research: More (valuable) questions than answers / Urs Hugentobler - Publication of research results: Use and abuse / Wilfred F. van Gunsteren - Wanted: Transparent algorithms, interpretation skills, common sense / Eva E. Wille - Impact factors, the h-index, and citation hype - Metrics in research from the point of view of a journal editor / Renato Zenobi - Rashomon or metrics in a publisher's world / Gabriella Karger - The impact factor and I: A love-hate relationship / Jean-Christophe Leroux - Personal experiences bringing altmetrics to the academic market / Ben McLeish - Fatally attracted by numbers? / Oliver Renn - On computable numbers / Gerd Folkers, Laura Folkers - ScienceMatters - Single observation science publishing and linking observations to create an internet of science / Lawrence Rajendran.

0.00580586 = product of:
  0.040641017 = sum of:
    0.040641017 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040641017 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.18986413 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This is a report about the use and misuse of citation data in the assessment of scientific research. The idea that research assessment must be done using "simple and objective" methods is increasingly prevalent today. The "simple and objective" methods are broadly interpreted as bibliometrics, that is, citation data and the statistics derived from them. There is a belief that citation statistics are inherently more accurate because they substitute simple numbers for complex judgments, and hence overcome the possible subjectivity of peer review. But this belief is unfounded. - Relying on statistics is not more accurate when the statistics are improperly used. Indeed, statistics can mislead when they are misapplied or misunderstood. Much of modern bibliometrics seems to rely on experience and intuition about the interpretation and validity of citation statistics. - While numbers appear to be "objective", their objectivity can be illusory. The meaning of a citation can be even more subjective than peer review. Because this subjectivity is less obvious for citations, those who use citation data are less likely to understand their limitations. - The sole reliance on citation data provides at best an incomplete and often shallow understanding of research - an understanding that is valid only when reinforced by other judgments. Numbers are not inherently superior to sound judgments.

0.0051143095 = product of:
  0.035800166 = sum of:
    0.035800166 = product of:
      0.07160033 = sum of:
        0.07160033 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07160033 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.002765018 = product of:
  0.019355126 = sum of:
    0.019355126 = product of:
      0.03871025 = sum of:
        0.03871025 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 3081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03871025 = score(doc=3081,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.21396513 = fieldWeight in 3081, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3081)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus