-
Olensky, M.; Schmidt, M.; Eck, N.J. van: Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the Web of science (2016)
0.01
0.012104871 = product of:
0.07262922 = sum of:
0.03631461 = weight(_text_:web in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631461 = score(doc=3130,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
0.03631461 = weight(_text_:web in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03631461 = score(doc=3130,freq=6.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Abstract
- The results of bibliometric studies provided by bibliometric research groups, for example, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) and the Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ), are often used in the process of research assessment. Their databases use Web of Science (WoS) citation data, which they match according to their own matching algorithms-in the case of CWTS for standard usage in their studies and in the case of iFQ on an experimental basis. Because the problem of nonmatched citations in the WoS persists due to inaccuracies in the references or inaccuracies introduced in the data extraction process, it is important to ascertain how well these inaccuracies are rectified in these citation matching algorithms. This article evaluates the algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the WoS in a quantitative and a qualitative analysis. The analysis builds upon the method and the manually verified corpus of a previous study. The algorithm of CWTS performs best, closely followed by that of iFQ. The WoS algorithm still performs quite well (F1 score: 96.41%), but shows deficits in matching references containing inaccuracies. An additional problem is posed by incorrectly provided cited reference information in source articles by the WoS.
- Object
- Web of science
-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬The inconsistency of the h-index : the case of web accessibility in Western European countries (2012)
0.01
0.0083865 = product of:
0.050318997 = sum of:
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.025159499 = weight(_text_:web in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.025159499 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
-
Waltman, L.; Eck, N.J. van: ¬A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science : keyword maps in Google scholar citations (2012)
0.01
0.0069887503 = product of:
0.0419325 = sum of:
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=511,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
0.02096625 = weight(_text_:web in 511) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02096625 = score(doc=511,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 511, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=511)
0.16666667 = coord(2/12)
- Abstract
- Classifying journals or publications into research areas is an essential element of many bibliometric analyses. Classification usually takes place at the level of journals, where the Web of Science subject categories are the most popular classification system. However, journal-level classification systems have two important limitations: They offer only a limited amount of detail, and they have difficulties with multidisciplinary journals. To avoid these limitations, we introduce a new methodology for constructing classification systems at the level of individual publications. In the proposed methodology, publications are clustered into research areas based on citation relations. The methodology is able to deal with very large numbers of publications. We present an application in which a classification system is produced that includes almost 10 million publications. Based on an extensive analysis of this classification system, we discuss the strengths and the limitations of the proposed methodology. Important strengths are the transparency and relative simplicity of the methodology and its fairly modest computing and memory requirements. The main limitation of the methodology is its exclusive reliance on direct citation relations between publications. The accuracy of the methodology can probably be increased by also taking into account other types of relations-for instance, based on bibliographic coupling.
-
Waltman, L.; Calero-Medina, C.; Kosten, J.; Noyons, E.C.M.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Eck, N.J. van; Leeuwen, T.N. van; Raan, A.F.J. van; Visser, M.S.; Wouters, P.: ¬The Leiden ranking 2011/2012 : data collection, indicators, and interpretation (2012)
0.00
0.0034274952 = product of:
0.041129943 = sum of:
0.041129943 = weight(_text_:world in 514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041129943 = score(doc=514,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.035634913 = queryNorm
0.30028677 = fieldWeight in 514, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=514)
0.083333336 = coord(1/12)
- Abstract
- The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.
