Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.02

0.018024668 = product of:
  0.09012334 = sum of:
    0.09012334 = sum of:
      0.054879453 = weight(_text_:index in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054879453 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
      0.03524389 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03524389 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Opthof, T.: Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time : principles for comparing sets of documents (2011) 0.01

0.008920433 = product of:
  0.044602163 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 4485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=4485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 4485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4485)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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) 0.01
```
0.0064676064 = product of:
  0.03233803 = sum of:
    0.03233803 = product of:
      0.06467606 = sum of:
        0.06467606 = weight(_text_:index in 532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06467606 = score(doc=532,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 532, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
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.

Aid

Science Citation Index
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) 0.01
```
0.0054879454 = product of:
  0.027439727 = sum of:
    0.027439727 = product of:
      0.054879453 = sum of:
        0.054879453 = weight(_text_:index in 1108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054879453 = score(doc=1108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 1108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
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.

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

0.0029369912 = product of:
  0.014684956 = sum of:
    0.014684956 = product of:
      0.029369911 = sum of:
        0.029369911 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029369911 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 22. 1.2011 12:51:07

Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors