-
Bornmann, L.: Nature's top 100 revisited (2015)
0.00
0.0038858398 = product of:
0.062173437 = sum of:
0.062173437 = weight(_text_:100 in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062173437 = score(doc=2351,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1059417 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = queryNorm
0.58686465 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
-
Bauer, J.; Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Highly cited papers in Library and Information Science (LIS) : authors, institutions, and network structures (2016)
0.00
0.0035383394 = product of:
0.028306715 = sum of:
0.014153358 = weight(_text_:23 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014153358 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07148406 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.014153358 = weight(_text_:23 in 3231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014153358 = score(doc=3231,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07148406 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = queryNorm
0.1979932 = fieldWeight in 3231, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5840597 = idf(docFreq=3336, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3231)
0.125 = coord(2/16)
- 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.
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Opthof, T.: Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time : principles for comparing sets of documents (2011)
0.00
0.0032972444 = product of:
0.05275591 = sum of:
0.05275591 = weight(_text_:100 in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05275591 = score(doc=4485,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1059417 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = queryNorm
0.49797118 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- Abstract
- We submit newly developed citation impact indicators based not on arithmetic averages of citations but on percentile ranks. Citation distributions are-as a rule-highly skewed and should not be arithmetically averaged. With percentile ranks, the citation score of each paper is rated in terms of its percentile in the citation distribution. The percentile ranks approach allows for the formulation of a more abstract indicator scheme that can be used to organize and/or schematize different impact indicators according to three degrees of freedom: the selection of the reference sets, the evaluation criteria, and the choice of whether or not to define the publication sets as independent. Bibliometric data of seven principal investigators (PIs) of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam are used as an exemplary dataset. We demonstrate that the proposed family indicators [R(6), R(100), R(6, k), R(100, k)] are an improvement on averages-based indicators because one can account for the shape of the distributions of citations over papers.
-
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
0.0019429199 = product of:
0.031086719 = sum of:
0.031086719 = weight(_text_:100 in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031086719 = score(doc=532,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1059417 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = queryNorm
0.29343233 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3116927 = idf(docFreq=592, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- 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.
-
Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014)
0.00
6.75568E-4 = product of:
0.010809088 = sum of:
0.010809088 = product of:
0.032427263 = sum of:
0.032427263 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.032427263 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069843985 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = 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)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- Date
- 18. 3.2014 19:13:22
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014)
0.00
4.5037863E-4 = product of:
0.007206058 = sum of:
0.007206058 = product of:
0.021618174 = sum of:
0.021618174 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021618174 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069843985 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = 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)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- Date
- 22. 8.2014 17:05:18
-
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
4.3759967E-4 = product of:
0.0070015946 = sum of:
0.0070015946 = product of:
0.021004783 = sum of:
0.021004783 = weight(_text_:f in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021004783 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07949649 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = queryNorm
0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
-
Bornmann, L.; Moya Anegón, F. de; Mutz, R.: Do universities or research institutions with a specific subject profile have an advantage or a disadvantage in institutional rankings? (2013)
0.00
4.3759967E-4 = product of:
0.0070015946 = sum of:
0.0070015946 = product of:
0.021004783 = sum of:
0.021004783 = weight(_text_:f in 1109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021004783 = score(doc=1109,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07949649 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = queryNorm
0.26422277 = fieldWeight in 1109, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1109)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
-
Bornmann, L.; Ye, A.; Ye, F.: Identifying landmark publications in the long run using field-normalized citation data (2018)
0.00
3.646664E-4 = product of:
0.0058346624 = sum of:
0.0058346624 = product of:
0.017503986 = sum of:
0.017503986 = weight(_text_:f in 4196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017503986 = score(doc=4196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07949649 = queryWeight, product of:
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = queryNorm
0.22018565 = fieldWeight in 4196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.985786 = idf(docFreq=2232, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4196)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
-
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
3.37784E-4 = product of:
0.005404544 = sum of:
0.005404544 = product of:
0.016213631 = sum of:
0.016213631 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016213631 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069843985 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = 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)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- Date
- 22. 3.2013 19:44:17
-
Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019)
0.00
3.37784E-4 = product of:
0.005404544 = sum of:
0.005404544 = product of:
0.016213631 = sum of:
0.016213631 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016213631 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069843985 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = 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)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- Date
- 8. 1.2019 18:22:45
-
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
2.8148666E-4 = product of:
0.0045037866 = sum of:
0.0045037866 = product of:
0.01351136 = sum of:
0.01351136 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01351136 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
0.069843985 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.019944998 = 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)
0.0625 = coord(1/16)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 12:51:07
