-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006)
0.01
0.007753731 = product of:
0.046522386 = sum of:
0.046522386 = weight(_text_:b in 196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046522386 = score(doc=196,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.041930884 = queryNorm
0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 196, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=196)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Applying the author affiliation index to library and information science journals (2008)
0.01
0.007753731 = product of:
0.046522386 = sum of:
0.046522386 = weight(_text_:b in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046522386 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.041930884 = queryNorm
0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: Timelines of creativity : A study of intellectual innovators in information science (2007)
0.01
0.006784515 = product of:
0.04070709 = sum of:
0.04070709 = weight(_text_:b in 480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04070709 = score(doc=480,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.041930884 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 480, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=480)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Cronin, B.; Meho, L.I.: ¬The shifting balance of intellectual trade in information studies (2008)
0.01
0.006784515 = product of:
0.04070709 = sum of:
0.04070709 = weight(_text_:b in 1377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04070709 = score(doc=1377,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.041930884 = queryNorm
0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 1377, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1377)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Meho, L.I.; Sonnenwald, D.H.: Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance : a case study of Kurdish scholarship (2000)
0.01
0.0058152988 = product of:
0.03489179 = sum of:
0.03489179 = weight(_text_:b in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03489179 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14855953 = queryWeight, product of:
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.041930884 = queryNorm
0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 4382, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4382)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between citation ranking and peer evaluation in assessing senior faculty research performance. Other studies typically derive their peer evaluation data directly from referees, often in the form of ranking. This study uses two additional sources of peer evaluation data: citation contant analysis and book review content analysis. 2 main questions are investigated: (a) To what degree does citation ranking correlate with data from citation content analysis, book reviews and peer ranking? (b) Is citation ranking a valif evaluative indicator of research performance of senior faculty members? This study shows that citation ranking can provide a valid indicator for comparative evaluation of senior faculty research performance
-
Meho, L.I.; Rogers, Y.: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers : a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science (2008)
0.00
0.0023671067 = product of:
0.014202639 = sum of:
0.014202639 = product of:
0.028405279 = sum of:
0.028405279 = weight(_text_:22 in 2352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028405279 = score(doc=2352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1468348 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.041930884 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- 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.
