Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Marx, W."
  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Marx, W.: Special features of historical papers from the viewpoint of bibliometrics (2011) 0.01 
    0.0072921137 = product of:
  0.036460567 = sum of:
    0.012153522 = product of:
      0.024307044 = sum of:
        0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 4133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024307044 = score(doc=4133,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4133, 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=4133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.024307044 = weight(_text_:web in 4133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024307044 = score(doc=4133,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4133, 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=4133)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    This paper deals with the specific features of historical papers relevant for information retrieval and bibliometrics. The analysis is based mainly on the citation indexes accessible under the Web of Science (WoS) but also on field-specific databases: the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) literature database and the INSPEC database. First, the journal coverage of the WoS (in particular of the WoS Century of Science archive), the limitations of specific search fields as well as several database errors are discussed. Then, the problem of misspelled citations and their "mutations" is demonstrated by a few typical examples. Complex author names, complicated journal names, and other sources of errors that result from prior citation practice are further issues. Finally, some basic phenomena limiting the meaning of citation counts of historical papers are presented and explained.
  2. Bornmann, L.; Thor, A.; Marx, W.; Schier, H.: ¬The application of bibliometrics to research evaluation in the humanities and social sciences : an exploratory study using normalized Google Scholar data for the publications of a research institute (2016) 0.01 
    0.0060767615 = product of:
  0.030383807 = sum of:
    0.010127936 = product of:
      0.020255871 = sum of:
        0.020255871 = weight(_text_:web in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020255871 = score(doc=3160,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3160, 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=3160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.020255871 = weight(_text_:web in 3160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020255871 = score(doc=3160,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11235461 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3160, 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=3160)
  0.2 = coord(2/10)
    Abstract
    In the humanities and social sciences, bibliometric methods for the assessment of research performance are (so far) less common. This study uses a concrete example in an attempt to evaluate a research institute from the area of social sciences and humanities with the help of data from Google Scholar (GS). In order to use GS for a bibliometric study, we developed procedures for the normalization of citation impact, building on the procedures of classical bibliometrics. In order to test the convergent validity of the normalized citation impact scores, we calculated normalized scores for a subset of the publications based on data from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus. Even if scores calculated with the help of GS and the WoS/Scopus are not identical for the different publication types (considered here), they are so similar that they result in the same assessment of the institute investigated in this study: For example, the institute's papers whose journals are covered in the WoS are cited at about an average rate (compared with the other papers in the journals).
  3. Neuhaus, C.; Marx, W.; Daniel, H.-W.: ¬The publication and citation impact profiles of Angewandte Chemie and the Journal of the American Chemical Society based on the sections of Chemical Abstracts : a case study on the limitations of the Journal Impact Factor (2009) 0.00 
    0.0042241765 = product of:
  0.042241763 = sum of:
    0.042241763 = weight(_text_:wide in 2707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042241763 = score(doc=2707,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15254007 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03442753 = queryNorm
        0.2769224 = fieldWeight in 2707, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2707)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Abstract
    The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) published by Thomson Reuters is often used to evaluate the significance and performance of scientific journals. Besides methodological problems with the JIF, the critical issue is whether a single measure is sufficient for characterizing the impact of journals, particularly the impact of multidisciplinary and wide-scope journals that publish articles in a broad range of research fields. Taking Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society as examples, we examined the two journals' publication and impact profiles across the sections of Chemical Abstracts and compared the results with the JIF. The analysis was based primarily on Communications published in Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society during 2001 to 2005. The findings show that the information available in the Science Citation Index is a rather unreliable indication of the document type and is therefore inappropriate for comparative analysis. The findings further suggest that the composition of the journal in terms of contribution types, the length of the citation window, and the thematic focus of the journal in terms of the sections of Chemical Abstracts has a significant influence on the overall journal citation impact. Therefore, a single measure of journal citation impact such as the JIF is insufficient for characterizing the significance and performance of wide-scope journals. For the comparison of journals, more sophisticated methods such as publication and impact profiles across subject headings of bibliographic databases (e.g., the sections of Chemical Abstracts) are valuable.
  4. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.00 
    0.0018657822 = product of:
  0.018657822 = sum of:
    0.018657822 = product of:
      0.055973463 = sum of:
        0.055973463 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055973463 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12055935 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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
  5. Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: Distributions instead of single numbers : percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers (2014) 0.00 
    0.0010982524 = product of:
  0.010982524 = sum of:
    0.010982524 = product of:
      0.03294757 = sum of:
        0.03294757 = weight(_text_:29 in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03294757 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12110529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    29. 1.2014 15:58:21
  6. 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 
    7.8446604E-4 = product of:
  0.00784466 = sum of:
    0.00784466 = product of:
      0.023533981 = sum of:
        0.023533981 = weight(_text_:29 in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023533981 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12110529 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03442753 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(1/10)
    Date
    8. 1.2011 18:29:40

Authors

Years