Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  1. Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016) 0.01 
    0.012309823 = product of:
  0.070781484 = sum of:
    0.012935456 = product of:
      0.025870912 = sum of:
        0.025870912 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025870912 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.026419718 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026419718 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.025870912 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025870912 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
    0.0055553955 = product of:
      0.011110791 = sum of:
        0.011110791 = weight(_text_:1 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011110791 = score(doc=3231,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.17391305 = coord(4/23)
    Abstract
    As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science (WoS) subject category "Information Science & Library Science." In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (http://highlycited.com/). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
  2. 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 
    0.0102093 = product of:
  0.0782713 = sum of:
    0.015522547 = product of:
      0.031045094 = sum of:
        0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031045094 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.031703662 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031703662 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10616633 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
    0.031045094 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031045094 = score(doc=2779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10505787 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.13043478 = coord(3/23)
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
  3. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.00 
    0.0021422622 = product of:
  0.024636015 = sum of:
    0.015056648 = product of:
      0.030113297 = sum of:
        0.030113297 = weight(_text_:international in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030113297 = score(doc=4681,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.38302523 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009579366 = product of:
      0.019158732 = sum of:
        0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019158732 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    A recent publication in Nature reports that public R&D funding is only weakly correlated with the citation impact of a nation's articles as measured by the field-weighted citation index (FWCI; defined by Scopus). On the basis of the supplementary data, we up-scaled the design using Web of Science data for the decade 2003-2013 and OECD funding data for the corresponding decade assuming a 2-year delay (2001-2011). Using negative binomial regression analysis, we found very small coefficients, but the effects of international collaboration are positive and statistically significant, whereas the effects of government funding are negative, an order of magnitude smaller, and statistically nonsignificant (in two of three analyses). In other words, international collaboration improves the impact of research articles, whereas more government funding tends to have a small adverse effect when comparing OECD countries.
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
  4. Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013) 0.00 
    0.0015658123 = product of:
  0.01800684 = sum of:
    0.013292931 = weight(_text_:und in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013292931 = score(doc=928,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052235067 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.023567878 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=928,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    Grundsätzlich können wir bei Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft zwischen einer 'qualitative' Form, der Bewertung einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit (z. B. eines Manuskripts oder Forschungsantrags) durch kompetente Peers, und einer 'quantitative' Form, der Bewertung von wissenschaftlicher Arbeit anhand bibliometrischer Indikatoren unterscheiden. Beide Formen der Bewertung sind nicht unumstritten. Die Kritiker des Peer Review sehen vor allem zwei Schwächen des Verfahrens: (1) Verschiedene Gutachter würden kaum in der Bewertung ein und derselben wissenschaftlichen Arbeit übereinstimmen. (2) Gutachterliche Empfehlungen würden systematische Urteilsverzerrungen aufweisen. Gegen die Verwendung von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für die Qualität einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit wird seit Jahren eine Vielzahl von Bedenken geäußert. Zitierhäufigkeiten seien keine 'objektiven' Messungen von wissenschaftlicher Qualität, sondern ein kritisierbares Messkonstrukt. So wird unter anderem kritisiert, dass wissenschaftliche Qualität ein komplexes Phänomen darstelle, das nicht auf einer eindimensionalen Skala (d. h. anhand von Zitierhäufigkeiten) gemessen werden könne. Es werden empirische Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Fairness des Peer Review Verfahrens sowie Forschungsergebnisse zur Güte von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für wissenschaftliche Qualität vorgestellt.
  5. Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.: Distributions instead of single numbers : percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers (2014) 0.00 
    0.0014588641 = product of:
  0.033553872 = sum of:
    0.033553872 = sum of:
      0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010999122 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 1190, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1190)
      0.02255475 = weight(_text_:29 in 1190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02255475 = score(doc=1190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = 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)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    29. 1.2014 15:58:21
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.1, S.206-208
  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 
    0.0010420457 = product of:
  0.02396705 = sum of:
    0.02396705 = sum of:
      0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007856515 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4132, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4132)
      0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 4132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016110536 = score(doc=4132,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = 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)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    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
  7. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? : The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine (2007) 0.00 
    9.7151217E-4 = product of:
  0.01117239 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    Scientists may seek to report a single definable body of research in more than one publication, that is, in repeated reports of the same work or in fractional reports, in order to disseminate their research as widely as possible in the scientific community. Up to now, however, it has not been examined whether this strategy of "multiple publication" in fact leads to greater reception of the research. In the present study, we investigate the influence of number of articles reporting the results of a single study on reception in the scientific community (total citation counts of an article on a single study). Our data set consists of 96 applicants for a research fellowship from the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds (BIF), an international foundation for the promotion of basic research in biomedicine. The applicants reported to us all articles that they had published within the framework of their doctoral research projects. On this single project, the applicants had published from 1 to 16 articles (M = 4; Mdn = 3). The results of a regression model with an interaction term show that the practice of multiple publication of research study results does in fact lead to greater reception of the research (higher total citation counts) in the scientific community. However, reception is dependent upon length of article: the longer the article, the more total citation counts increase with the number of articles. Thus, it pays for scientists to practice multiple publication of study results in the form of sizable reports.
  8. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Universality of citation distributions : a validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry (2009) 0.00 
    9.7151217E-4 = product of:
  0.01117239 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)
    Abstract
    In a recently published PNAS paper, Radicchi, Fortunato, and Castellano (2008) propose the relative indicator cf as an unbiased indicator for citation performance across disciplines (fields, subject areas). To calculate cf, the citation rate for a single paper is divided by the average number of citations for all papers in the discipline in which the single paper has been categorized. cf values are said to lead to a universality of discipline-specific citation distributions. Using a comprehensive dataset of an evaluation study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), we tested the advantage of using this indicator in practical application at the micro level, as compared with (1) simple citation rates, and (2) z-scores, which have been used in psychological testing for many years for normalization of test scores. To calculate z-scores, the mean number of citations of the papers within a discipline is subtracted from the citation rate of a single paper, and the difference is then divided by the citations' standard deviation for a discipline. Our results indicate that z-scores are better suited than cf values to produce universality of discipline-specific citation distributions.
  9. Bornmann, L.: On the function of university rankings (2014) 0.00 
    8.4054976E-4 = product of:
  0.019332644 = sum of:
    0.019332644 = product of:
      0.038665287 = sum of:
        0.038665287 = weight(_text_:29 in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038665287 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    29. 1.2014 16:55:03
  10. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.00 
    8.3298836E-4 = product of:
  0.019158732 = sum of:
    0.019158732 = product of:
      0.038317464 = sum of:
        0.038317464 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038317464 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  11. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.00 
    5.553256E-4 = product of:
  0.012772488 = sum of:
    0.012772488 = product of:
      0.025544977 = sum of:
        0.025544977 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025544977 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
  12. Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008) 0.00 
    5.0393963E-4 = product of:
  0.011590611 = sum of:
    0.011590611 = product of:
      0.023181222 = sum of:
        0.023181222 = weight(_text_:international in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023181222 = score(doc=2381,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2948529 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    All journals that use peer review have to deal with the following question: Does the peer review system fulfill its declared objective to select the best scientific work? We investigated the journal peer-review process at Angewandte Chemie International Edition (AC-IE), one of the prime chemistry journals worldwide, and conducted a citation analysis for Communications that were accepted by the journal (n = 878) or rejected but published elsewhere (n = 959). The results of negative binomial-regression models show that holding all other model variables constant, being accepted by AC-IE increases the expected number of citations by up to 50%. A comparison of average citation counts (with 95% confidence intervals) of accepted and rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications with international scientific reference standards was undertaken. As reference standards, (a) mean citation counts for the journal set provided by Thomson Reuters corresponding to the field chemistry and (b) specific reference standards that refer to the subject areas of Chemical Abstracts were used. When compared to reference standards, the mean impact on chemical research is for the most part far above average not only for accepted Communications but also for rejected (but published elsewhere) Communications. However, average and below-average scientific impact is to be expected significantly less frequently for accepted Communications than for rejected Communications. All in all, the results of this study confirm that peer review at AC-IE is able to select the best scientific work with the highest impact on chemical research.
    Content
    Vgl. auch: Erratum Re: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Agewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(2008) no.12, S.2037-2038.
  13. Collins, H.; Bornmann, L.: On scientific misconduct (2014) 0.00 
    4.782227E-4 = product of:
  0.010999122 = sum of:
    0.010999122 = product of:
      0.021998243 = sum of:
        0.021998243 = weight(_text_:1 in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021998243 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.37997085 = fieldWeight in 1247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    1. 5.2014 18:21:46
  14. Bornmann, L.: Scientific peer review (2011) 0.00 
    4.782227E-4 = product of:
  0.010999122 = sum of:
    0.010999122 = product of:
      0.021998243 = sum of:
        0.021998243 = weight(_text_:1 in 1600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021998243 = score(doc=1600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.37997085 = fieldWeight in 1600, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.197-245
  15. 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) 0.00 
    4.1649418E-4 = product of:
  0.009579366 = sum of:
    0.009579366 = product of:
      0.019158732 = sum of:
        0.019158732 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019158732 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:44:17
  16. 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) 0.00 
    3.470785E-4 = product of:
  0.007982805 = sum of:
    0.007982805 = product of:
      0.01596561 = sum of:
        0.01596561 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01596561 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
  17. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multilevel-statistical reformulation of citation-based university rankings : the Leiden ranking 2011/2012 (2013) 0.00 
    3.149623E-4 = product of:
  0.0072441325 = sum of:
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 1007) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=1007,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 1007, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1007)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    Since the 1990s, with the heightened competition and the strong growth of the international higher education market, an increasing number of rankings have been created that measure the scientific performance of an institution based on data. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 (LR) was published early in 2012. Starting from Goldstein and Spiegelhalter's (1996) recommendations for conducting quantitative comparisons among institutions, in this study we undertook a reformulation of the LR by means of multilevel regression models. First, with our models we replicated the ranking results; second, the reanalysis of the LR data showed that only 5% of the PPtop10% total variation is attributable to differences between universities. Beyond that, about 80% of the variation between universities can be explained by differences among countries. If covariates are included in the model the differences among most of the universities become meaningless. Our findings have implications for conducting university rankings in general and for the LR in particular. For example, with Goldstein-adjusted confidence intervals, it is possible to interpret the significance of differences among universities meaningfully: Rank differences among universities should be interpreted as meaningful only if their confidence intervals do not overlap.
  18. Leydesdorff, L.; Zhou, P.; Bornmann, L.: How can journal impact factors be normalized across fields of science? : An assessment in terms of percentile ranks and fractional counts (2013) 0.00 
    2.4153895E-4 = product of:
  0.0055553955 = sum of:
    0.0055553955 = product of:
      0.011110791 = sum of:
        0.011110791 = weight(_text_:1 in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011110791 = score(doc=532,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    Using the CD-ROM version of the Science Citation Index 2010 (N = 3,705 journals), we study the (combined) effects of (a) fractional counting on the impact factor (IF) and (b) transformation of the skewed citation distributions into a distribution of 100 percentiles and six percentile rank classes (top-1%, top-5%, etc.). Do these approaches lead to field-normalized impact measures for journals? In addition to the 2-year IF (IF2), we consider the 5-year IF (IF5), the respective numerators of these IFs, and the number of Total Cites, counted both as integers and fractionally. These various indicators are tested against the hypothesis that the classification of journals into 11 broad fields by PatentBoard/NSF (National Science Foundation) provides statistically significant between-field effects. Using fractional counting the between-field variance is reduced by 91.7% in the case of IF5, and by 79.2% in the case of IF2. However, the differences in citation counts are not significantly affected by fractional counting. These results accord with previous studies, but the longer citation window of a fractionally counted IF5 can lead to significant improvement in the normalization across fields.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.1, S.96-107
  19. Bornmann, L.; Moya Anegón, F.de: What proportion of excellent papers makes an institution one of the best worldwide? : Specifying thresholds for the interpretation of the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking and the Leiden Ranking (2014) 0.00 
    2.4153895E-4 = product of:
  0.0055553955 = sum of:
    0.0055553955 = product of:
      0.011110791 = sum of:
        0.011110791 = weight(_text_:1 in 1235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011110791 = score(doc=1235,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.19191428 = fieldWeight in 1235, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1235)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    University rankings generally present users with the problem of placing the results given for an institution in context. Only a comparison with the performance of all other institutions makes it possible to say exactly where an institution stands. In order to interpret the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking (based on Scopus data) and the Leiden Ranking (based on Web of Science data), in this study we offer thresholds with which it is possible to assess whether an institution belongs to the top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, top 25%, or top 50% of institutions in the world. The thresholds are based on the excellence rate or PPtop 10%. Both indicators measure the proportion of an institution's publications which belong to the 10% most frequently cited publications and are the most important indicators for measuring institutional impact. For example, while an institution must achieve a value of 24.63% in the Leiden Ranking 2013 to be considered one of the top 1% of institutions worldwide, the SCImago Institutions Ranking requires 30.2%.
  20. Leydesdorff, L.; Radicchi, F.; Bornmann, L.; Castellano, C.; Nooy, W. de: Field-normalized impact factors (IFs) : a comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs (2013) 0.00 
    2.0495258E-4 = product of:
  0.0047139092 = sum of:
    0.0047139092 = product of:
      0.0094278185 = sum of:
        0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0094278185 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    Abstract
    Two methods for comparing impact factors and citation rates across fields of science are tested against each other using citations to the 3,705 journals in the Science Citation Index 2010 (CD-Rom version of SCI) and the 13 field categories used for the Science and Engineering Indicators of the U.S. National Science Board. We compare (a) normalization by counting citations in proportion to the length of the reference list (1/N of references) with (b) rescaling by dividing citation scores by the arithmetic mean of the citation rate of the cluster. Rescaling is analytical and therefore independent of the quality of the attribution to the sets, whereas fractional counting provides an empirical strategy for normalization among sets (by evaluating the between-group variance). By the fairness test of Radicchi and Castellano (), rescaling outperforms fractional counting of citations for reasons that we consider.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 25
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes