Search (392 results, page 1 of 20)

0.07405391 = product of:
  0.18513478 = sum of:
    0.16226834 = weight(_text_:1091 in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16226834 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35686025 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.231152 = idf(docFreq=31, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.45471117 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.231152 = idf(docFreq=31, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
    0.02286644 = product of:
      0.04573288 = sum of:
        0.04573288 = weight(_text_:index in 1868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04573288 = score(doc=1868,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 1868, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Bibliographic databases contain surrogates to a particular subset of the complete set of literature; some databases are very narrow in their scope, while others are multidisciplinary. These databases overlap in their coverage of the literature to a greater or lesser extent. The topic of Fuzzy Set Theory is examined to determine the overlap of coverage in the databases that index this topic. It was found that about 63% of records in the data set are unique to only one database, and the remaining 37% are duplicated in from two to 12 different databases. The overlap distribution is found to conform to a Lotka-type plot. The records with maximum overlap are identified; however, further work is needed to determine the significance of the high level of overlap in these records. The unique records are plotted using a Bradford-type form of data presentation and are found to conform (visually) to a hyperbolic distribution. The extent and causes of intra-database duplication (records duplicated in the one database) are also examined. Finally, the overlap in the top databases in the dataset were examined, and a high correlation was found between overlapping records, and overlapping DIALOG OneSearch categories.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1091-1103

0.06568366 = product of:
  0.16420916 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=3418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 3418, 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=3418)
    0.119606994 = product of:
      0.23921399 = sum of:
        0.23921399 = weight(_text_:index in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.23921399 = score(doc=3418,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            1.2626734 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Of h-type indices available now, the g-index is an important one in that it not only keeps some advantages of the h-index but also counts citations from highly cited articles. However, the g-index has a drawback that one has to add fictitious articles with zero citation to calculate this index in some important cases. Based on an alternative definition without introducing fictitious articles, an analytical method has been proposed to calculate the g-index based approximately on the h-index and the e-index. If citations for a scientist are ranked by a power law, it is shown that the g-index can be calculated accurately by the h-index, the e-index, and the power parameter. The relationship of the h-, g-, and e-indices presented here shows that the g-index contains the citation information from the h-index, the e-index, and some papers beyond the h-core.

Object

h-index
g-index
e-index

0.06080215 = product of:
  0.15200537 = sum of:
    0.07358981 = weight(_text_:t in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07358981 = score(doc=243,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.4308728 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
    0.07841556 = product of:
      0.15683112 = sum of:
        0.15683112 = weight(_text_:index in 243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15683112 = score(doc=243,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.82782143 = fieldWeight in 243, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=243)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Based on earlier results about the shifted Lotka function, we prove an implicit functional relation between the Hirsch index (h-index) and the total number of sources (T). It is shown that the corresponding function, h(T), is concavely increasing. Next, we construct an implicit relation between the h-index and the impact factor IF (an average number of items per source). The corresponding function h(IF) is increasing and we show that if the parameter C in the numerator of the shifted Lotka function is high, then the relation between the h-index and the impact factor is almost linear.

Object

h-index

0.05508718 = product of:
  0.2754359 = sum of:
    0.2754359 = weight(_text_:2f in 2188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2754359 = score(doc=2188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3675628 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 2188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2188)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vgl. unter: https://www.leibniz-science20.de%2Fforschung%2Fprojekte%2Faltmetrics-in-verschiedenen-wissenschaftsdisziplinen%2F&ei=2jTgVaaXGcK4Udj1qdgB&usg=AFQjCNFOPdONj4RKBDf9YDJOLuz3lkGYlg&sig2=5YI3KWIGxBmk5_kv0P_8iQ.

0.05018714 = product of:
  0.12546785 = sum of:
    0.07433694 = weight(_text_:t in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07433694 = score(doc=2009,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.43524727 = fieldWeight in 2009, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2009)
    0.051130917 = product of:
      0.102261834 = sum of:
        0.102261834 = weight(_text_:index in 2009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.102261834 = score(doc=2009,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.5397815 = fieldWeight in 2009, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The article studies the influence of the query formulation of a topic on its h-index. In order to generate pure random sets of documents, we used N-grams (N variable) to measure this influence: strings of zeros, truncated at the end. The used databases are WoS and Scopus. The formula h=T**1/alpha, proved in Egghe and Rousseau (2006) where T is the number of retrieved documents and is Lotka's exponent, is confirmed being a concavely increasing function of T. We also give a formula for the relation between h and N the length of the N-gram: h=D10**(-N/alpha) where D is a constant, a convexly decreasing function, which is found in our experiments. Nonlinear regression on h=T**1/alpha gives an estimation of , which can then be used to estimate the h-index of the entire database (Web of Science [WoS] and Scopus): h=S**1/alpha, , where S is the total number of documents in the database.

Object

h-index

0.0376595 = product of:
  0.09414875 = sum of:
    0.07358981 = weight(_text_:t in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07358981 = score(doc=3837,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.4308728 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
    0.020558937 = product of:
      0.041117873 = sum of:
        0.041117873 = weight(_text_:22 in 3837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041117873 = score(doc=3837,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3837, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3837)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In this article we further develop the theory for a stochastic model for the citation process in the presence of obsolescence to predict the future citation pattern of individual papers in a collection. More precisely, we investigate the conditional distribution-and its mean- of the number of citations to a paper after time t, given the number of citations it has received up to time t. In an important parametric case it is shown that the expected number of future citations is a linear function of the current number, this being interpretable as an example of a success-breeds-success phenomenon.

Date

29. 3.2003 19:22:48

0.03685167 = product of:
  0.09212917 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=3467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 3467, 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=3467)
    0.047527004 = product of:
      0.09505401 = sum of:
        0.09505401 = weight(_text_:index in 3467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09505401 = score(doc=3467,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 3467, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The journal impact factors, published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI; Philadelphia, PA), are widely known and are used to evaluate overall journal quality and the quality of the papers published therein. However, when making comparisons between subject fields, the work of individual scientists and their research institutions as reflected in their articles' ISI impact factors can become meaningless. This inequality will remain as long as ISI impact factors are employed as an instrument to assess the quality of international research. Here we propose a new mathematical index entitled Impact Factor PointAverage (IFPA) for assessment of the quality of individual research work in different subject fields. The index is established based an a normalization of differences in impact factors, rankings, and number of journal titles in different subject fields. The proposed index is simple and enables the ISI impact factors to be used with equality, especially when evaluating the quality of research work in different subject fields.

0.033934113 = product of:
  0.16967055 = sum of:
    0.16967055 = sum of:
      0.13442667 = weight(_text_:index in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13442667 = score(doc=590,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.7095612 = fieldWeight in 590, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=590)
      0.03524389 = weight(_text_:22 in 590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03524389 = score(doc=590,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 590, 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=590)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"Zur Kurzmitteilung "Latest enhancements in Scopus: ... h-Index incorporated in Scopus" in den letzten Online-Mitteilungen (Online-Mitteilungen 92, S.31) ist zu korrigieren, dass der h-Index sehr wohl bereits im Web of Science enthalten ist. Allerdings findet man/frau diese Information nicht in der "cited ref search", sondern neben der Trefferliste einer Quick Search, General Search oder einer Suche über den Author Finder in der rechten Navigationsleiste unter dem Titel "Citation Report". Der "Citation Report" bietet für die in der jeweiligen Trefferliste angezeigten Arbeiten: - Die Gesamtzahl der Zitierungen aller Arbeiten in der Trefferliste - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten - Die Anzahl der Zitierungen der einzelnen Arbeiten, aufgeschlüsselt nach Publikationsjahr der zitierenden Arbeiten - Die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit dieser Arbeiten pro Jahr - Den h-Index (ein h-Index von x sagt aus, dass x Arbeiten der Trefferliste mehr als x-mal zitiert wurden; er ist gegenüber sehr hohen Zitierungen einzelner Arbeiten unempfindlicher als die mittlere Zitationshäufigkeit)."

Date

6. 4.2008 19:04:22

Object

H-Index

0.03336312 = product of:
  0.0834078 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 5911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=5911,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 5911, 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=5911)
    0.038805634 = product of:
      0.07761127 = sum of:
        0.07761127 = weight(_text_:index in 5911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07761127 = score(doc=5911,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 5911, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5911)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

We propose an approach to visualizing the scientific world and its evolution by constructing minimum spanning trees (MSTs) and a two-dimensional map of scientific journals using the database of the Science Citation Index (SCI) during 1994-2001. The structures of constructed MSTs are consistent with the sorting of SCI categories. The map of science is constructed based on our MST results. Such a map shows the relation among various knowledge clusters and their citation properties. The temporal evolution of the scientific world can also be delineated in the map. In particular, this map clearly shows a linear structure of the scientific world, which contains three major domains including physical sciences, life sciences, and medical sciences. The interaction of various knowledge fields can be clearly seen from this scientific world map. This approach can be applied to various levels of knowledge domains.

Object

Science Citation Index

0.03336312 = product of:
  0.0834078 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=4591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 4591, 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=4591)
    0.038805634 = product of:
      0.07761127 = sum of:
        0.07761127 = weight(_text_:index in 4591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07761127 = score(doc=4591,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.40966535 = fieldWeight in 4591, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index

0.03331371 = product of:
  0.16656855 = sum of:
    0.16656855 = sum of:
      0.13719864 = weight(_text_:index in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13719864 = score(doc=4147,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.72419286 = fieldWeight in 4147, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4147)
      0.029369911 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029369911 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4147, 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=4147)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This review aims to show, broadly, how the h-index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use. Design/methodology/approach - The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h-index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation. Findings - The analysis shows how the h-index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application. Originality/value - The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h-index as its latest addition. The use of the h-index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h-index by more studies.

Date

8. 1.2011 19:22:13

Object

h-index

0.033186194 = product of:
  0.08296548 = sum of:
    0.05946955 = weight(_text_:t in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05946955 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 5092, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5092)
    0.023495927 = product of:
      0.046991855 = sum of:
        0.046991855 = weight(_text_:22 in 5092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046991855 = score(doc=5092,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5092, 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=5092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Presents a list of 53 periodicals in 22 subject fields which regularly provide bibliographies of theses, research in progress and patents in their particular subject field. The fields of business, economics, history and literature have most periodical listings of dissertations and theses. Also lists 63 periodicals in 25 sub-disciplines which provide rankings or ratings. Rankings and ratings information predominates in the fields of business, sports and games, finance and banking, and library and information science

0.033186194 = product of:
  0.08296548 = sum of:
    0.05946955 = weight(_text_:t in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05946955 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.34819782 = fieldWeight in 77, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=77)
    0.023495927 = product of:
      0.046991855 = sum of:
        0.046991855 = weight(_text_:22 in 77) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046991855 = score(doc=77,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 77, 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=77)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

4.12.2006 12:12:22

0.033160537 = product of:
  0.08290134 = sum of:
    0.03716847 = weight(_text_:t in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03716847 = score(doc=1237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
    0.04573288 = product of:
      0.09146576 = sum of:
        0.09146576 = weight(_text_:index in 1237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09146576 = score(doc=1237,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.48279524 = fieldWeight in 1237, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The h-index provides us with 9 natural classes which can be written as a matrix of 3 vectors. The 3 vectors are: X = (X1, X2, X3) and indicates publication distribution in the h-core, the h-tail, and the uncited ones, respectively; Y = (Y1, Y2, Y3) denotes the citation distribution of the h-core, the h-tail and the so-called "excess" citations (above the h-threshold), respectively; and Z = (Z1, Z2, Z3) = (Y1-X1, Y2-X2, Y3-X3). The matrix V = (X,Y,Z)T constructs a measure of academic performance, in which the 9 numbers can all be provided with meanings in different dimensions. The "academic trace" tr(V) of this matrix follows naturally, and contributes a unique indicator for total academic achievements by summarizing and weighting the accumulation of publications and citations. This measure can also be used to combine the advantages of the h-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3) into a single number with a meaningful interpretation of the values. We illustrate the use of tr(V) for the cases of 2 journal sets, 2 universities, and ourselves as 2 individual authors.

Object

h-index

0.030172234 = product of:
  0.07543059 = sum of:
    0.05256415 = weight(_text_:t in 4944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05256415 = score(doc=4944,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.3077663 = fieldWeight in 4944, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4944)
    0.02286644 = product of:
      0.04573288 = sum of:
        0.04573288 = weight(_text_:index in 4944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04573288 = score(doc=4944,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.24139762 = fieldWeight in 4944, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study examines longitudinal trends in the university-industry-government (UIG) relationship on the web in the Korean context by using triple helix (TH) indicators. The study considers various Internet resources, including websites/documents, blogs, online cafes, Knowledge-In (comparable to Yahoo! Answers), and online news sites, by employing webometric and co-word analysis techniques to ascertain longitudinal trends in the UIG relationship, which have received considerable attention in the last decade. The results indicate that the UIG relationship varied according to the government's policies and that there was some tension in the longitudinal UIG relationship. Further, websites/documents and blogs were the most reliable sources for examining the strength of and variations in the bilateral and trilateral UIG relationships on the web. In addition, web-based T(uig) values showed a stronger trilateral relationship and larger variations in the UIG relationship than Science Citation Index-based T(uig) values. The results suggest that various Internet resources (e.g., advanced search engines, websites/documents, blogs, and online cafes), together with TH indicators, can be used to explore the UIG relationship on the web.

0.028816758 = product of:
  0.07204189 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 943, 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=943)
    0.027439727 = product of:
      0.054879453 = sum of:
        0.054879453 = weight(_text_:index in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054879453 = score(doc=943,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 943, 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=943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

0.0278026 = product of:
  0.069506496 = sum of:
    0.03716847 = weight(_text_:t in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03716847 = score(doc=5779,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 5779, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5779)
    0.03233803 = product of:
      0.06467606 = sum of:
        0.06467606 = weight(_text_:index in 5779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06467606 = score(doc=5779,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 5779, 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=5779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Zahlreiche Autoren, Autorinnen und kritische Initiativen (z. B. DORA) kritisieren den zu hohen und schädlichen Einfluss quantitativer Daten, welche akademische Instanzen für Evaluationszwecke heranziehen. Wegen des großen Einflusses der globalen Zitatdatenbanken von Thomson Reuters (bzw. Clarivate Analytics) auf die Bewertung der wissenschaftlichen Leistungen von Forscherinnen und Forschern habe ich extensive qualitative und quantitative Fallstudien zur Datenqualität des Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) durchgeführt, d. h. die Originaleinträge mit den SSCI-Datensätzen verglichen. Diese Fallstudien zeigten schwerste - nie in der Literatur erwähnte - Fehler, Verstümmelungen, Phantomautoren, Phantomwerke (Fehlerrate in der Fallstudie zu Beebe 2010, Harvard Law Review: 99 Prozent). Über die verwendeten Datenerfassungs- und Indexierungsverfahren von TR bzw. Clarivate Analytics ist nur wenig bekannt. Ein Ergebnis meiner Untersuchungen: Bei der Indexierung von Verweisen in Fußnoten (wie in den Rechtswissenschaften, gerade auch der USA, vorgeschrieben) scheinen die verwendeten Textanalyse-Anwendungen und -Algorithmen völlig überfordert. Eine Qualitätskontrolle scheint nicht stattzufinden. Damit steht der Anspruch des SSCI als einer multidisziplinären Datenbank zur Debatte. Korrekte Zitate in den Fußnoten des Originals können zu Phantom-Autoren, Phantom-Werken und Phantom-Referenzen degenerieren. Das bedeutet: Sämtliche Zeitschriften und Disziplinen, deren Zeitschriften und Büchern dieses oder ähnliche Zitierverfahren verwenden (Oxford-Style), laufen Gefahr, aufgrund starker Zitatverluste falsch, d. h. unterbewertet, zu werden. Wie viele UBOs (Unidentifiable Bibliographic Objects) sich in den Datenbanken SCI, SSCI und AHCI befinden, wäre nur mit sehr aufwändigen Prozeduren zu klären. Unabhängig davon handelt es sich, wie bei fast allen in meinen Untersuchungen gefundenen fatalen Fehlern, eindeutig um endogene Fehler in den Datenbanken, die nicht, wie oft behauptet, angeblich falsch zitierenden Autorinnen und Autoren zugeschrieben werden können, sondern erst im Laufe der Dateneingabe und -verarbeitung entstehen.

Object

Social Sciences Citation Index

0.026326349 = product of:
  0.13163175 = sum of:
    0.13163175 = sum of:
      0.102261834 = weight(_text_:index in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.102261834 = score(doc=2352,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.5397815 = fieldWeight in 2352, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2352)
      0.029369911 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029369911 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2352, 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=2352)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This study examines the differences between Scopus and Web of Science in the citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of 22 top human-computer interaction (HCI) researchers from EQUATOR - a large British Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration project. Results indicate that Scopus provides significantly more coverage of HCI literature than Web of Science, primarily due to coverage of relevant ACM and IEEE peer-reviewed conference proceedings. No significant differences exist between the two databases if citations in journals only are compared. Although broader coverage of the literature does not significantly alter the relative citation ranking of individual researchers, Scopus helps distinguish between the researchers in a more nuanced fashion than Web of Science in both citation counting and h-index. Scopus also generates significantly different maps of citation networks of individual scholars than those generated by Web of Science. The study also presents a comparison of h-index scores based on Google Scholar with those based on the union of Scopus and Web of Science. The study concludes that Scopus can be used as a sole data source for citation-based research and evaluation in HCI, especially when citations in conference proceedings are sought, and that researchers should manually calculate h scores instead of relying on system calculations.

Object

h-index

0.026059581 = product of:
  0.1302979 = sum of:
    0.1302979 = sum of:
      0.09505401 = weight(_text_:index in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09505401 = score(doc=4460,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18945041 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.50173557 = fieldWeight in 4460, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4460)
      0.03524389 = weight(_text_:22 in 4460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03524389 = score(doc=4460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04335484 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4460, 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=4460)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Aggregated journal-journal citations can be used for mapping the intellectual organization of the sciences in terms of specialties because the latter can be considered as interreading communities. Can the journal-journal citations also be used as early indicators of change by comparing the files for two subsequent years? Probabilistic entropy measures enable us to analyze changes in large datasets at different levels of aggregation and in considerable detail. Compares Journal Citation Reports of the Social Science Citation Index for 1999 with similar data for 1998 and analyzes the differences using these measures. Compares the various indicators with similar developments in the Science Citation Index. Specialty formation seems a more important mechanism in the development of the social sciences than in the natural and life sciences, but the developments in the social sciences are volatile. The use of aggregate statistics based on the Science Citation Index is ill-advised in the case of the social sciences because of structural differences in the underlying dynamics.

Date

6.11.2005 19:02:22

0.024889644 = product of:
  0.06222411 = sum of:
    0.044602163 = weight(_text_:t in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044602163 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17079243 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04335484 = queryNorm
        0.26114836 = fieldWeight in 2695, 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=2695)
    0.017621946 = product of:
      0.03524389 = sum of:
        0.03524389 = weight(_text_:22 in 2695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03524389 = score(doc=2695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15182126 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04335484 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2695, 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=2695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

23. 2.2009 18:22:28