Search (49 results, page 2 of 3)

0.0057157143 = product of:
  0.02857857 = sum of:
    0.02857857 = weight(_text_:b in 1825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02857857 = score(doc=1825,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 1825, 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=1825)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0057157143 = product of:
  0.02857857 = sum of:
    0.02857857 = weight(_text_:b in 4382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02857857 = score(doc=4382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.0057157143 = product of:
  0.02857857 = sum of:
    0.02857857 = weight(_text_:b in 5766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02857857 = score(doc=5766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5766, 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=5766)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0057157143 = product of:
  0.02857857 = sum of:
    0.02857857 = weight(_text_:b in 5021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02857857 = score(doc=5021,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5021, 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=5021)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bei den nachfolgenden Ausführungen handelt es sich um eine Zusammenstellung von Kommentaren, Vorträgen und Rückmeldungen von Kollegen bzw. Benutzern der Bibliothek sowie meine eigenen Erfahrungen als Vortragender im Universitätslehrgang "Master of Science", in dessen Rahmen ich das Fach "Bibliometrie" unterrichte. Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrages ist eine Zusammenfassung der Diskussion "Web of Science versus Scopus", die den aktuellen Stand der Kontroverse (vor allem an der Universität Wien im naturwissenschaftlichen Sektor) widerspiegelt. Hier ist zu bemerken, dass diese Problematik auch fachspezifisch ist und deswegen an jeder Universität bzw. in jedem Fachgebiet anders zu betrachten ist. Startpunkt meiner Betrachtung ist die allgemein akzeptierte Notwendigkeit des "Journal of Citation Reports (JCR)". Nur in diesem bibliometrischen Verzeichnis sind derzeit die "Impact Factors" zu finden, die als Grundlage jeder akademischen Evaluation dienen. Deswegen ist JCR heutzutage an jeder Universität mit naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern unentbehrlich und das aktuelle Dilemma der Bibliothekare lautet nicht wirklich "Web of Science versus Scopus", sondern genaugesagt "Fallbeispiel A: Web of Science &JCR" oder "Fallbeispiel B: Scopus &JCR".

0.0057157143 = product of:
  0.02857857 = sum of:
    0.02857857 = weight(_text_:b in 5131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02857857 = score(doc=5131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5131, 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=5131)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Der Beitrag widmet sich dem neuen Google-Suchdienst Google Scholar. Die Suchmaschine, die ausschließlich wissenschaftliche Dokumente durchsuchen soll, wird mit ihren wichtigsten Funktionen beschrieben und anschließend einem empirischen Test unterzogen. Die durchgeführte Studie basiert auf drei Zeitschriftenlisten: Zeitschriften von Thomson Scientific, Open AccessZeitschriften des Verzeichnisses DOAJ und in der Fachdatenbank SOLIS ausgewertete sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Die Abdeckung dieser Zeitschriften durch Google Scholar wurde per Abfrage der Zeitschriftentitel überprüft. Die Studie zeigt Defizite in der Abdeckung und Aktualität des Google Scholarlndex. Weiterhin macht die Studie deutlich, wer die wichtigsten Datenlieferanten für den neuen Suchdienst sind und welche wissenschaftlichen Informationsquellen im Index repräsentiert sind. Die Pluspunkte von Google Scholar liegen in seiner Einfachheit, seiner Suchgeschwindigkeit und letztendlich seiner Kostenfreiheit. Die Recherche in Fachdatenbanken kann Google Scholar trotz sichtbarer Potenziale (z. B. Zitationsanalyse) aber heute aufgrund mangelnder fachlicher Abdeckung und Transparenz nicht ersetzen.

0.0057157143 = product of:
  0.02857857 = sum of:
    0.02857857 = weight(_text_:b in 5898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02857857 = score(doc=5898,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 5898, 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=5898)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0057157143 = product of:
  0.02857857 = sum of:
    0.02857857 = weight(_text_:b in 38) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02857857 = score(doc=38,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 38, 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=38)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0057157143 = product of:
  0.02857857 = sum of:
    0.02857857 = weight(_text_:b in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02857857 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.23486741 = fieldWeight in 444, 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=444)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.004763095 = product of:
  0.023815475 = sum of:
    0.023815475 = weight(_text_:b in 839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023815475 = score(doc=839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=839)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.004763095 = product of:
  0.023815475 = sum of:
    0.023815475 = weight(_text_:b in 3335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023815475 = score(doc=3335,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3335, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3335)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Because the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is because of (a) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (b) the historical record of citations older than 10 years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.

0.004763095 = product of:
  0.023815475 = sum of:
    0.023815475 = weight(_text_:b in 3998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023815475 = score(doc=3998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.19572285 = fieldWeight in 3998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3998)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In this study, reference standards and reference multipliers are suggested as a means to compare the citation impact of earlier research publications in physics (from the period of "Little Science" in the early 20th century) with that of contemporary papers (from the period of "Big Science," beginning around 1960). For the development of time-specific reference standards, the authors determined (a) the mean citation rates of papers in selected physics journals as well as (b) the mean citation rates of all papers in physics published in 1900 (Little Science) and in 2000 (Big Science); this was accomplished by relying on the processes of field-specific standardization in bibliometry. For the sake of developing reference multipliers with which the citation impact of earlier papers can be adjusted to the citation impact of contemporary papers, they combined the reference standards calculated for 1900 and 2000 into their ratio. The use of reference multipliers is demonstrated by means of two examples involving the time adjusted h index values for Max Planck and Albert Einstein.

0.0038104763 = product of:
  0.01905238 = sum of:
    0.01905238 = weight(_text_:b in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01905238 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0038104763 = product of:
  0.01905238 = sum of:
    0.01905238 = weight(_text_:b in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01905238 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12167959 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03434403 = queryNorm
        0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0037225136 = product of:
  0.018612567 = sum of:
    0.018612567 = product of:
      0.07445027 = sum of:
        0.07445027 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07445027 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12026694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03434403 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.0037225136 = product of:
  0.018612567 = sum of:
    0.018612567 = product of:
      0.07445027 = sum of:
        0.07445027 = weight(_text_:22 in 4604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07445027 = score(doc=4604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12026694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03434403 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4604)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 2.2005 14:10:22

0.0023265711 = product of:
  0.011632855 = sum of:
    0.011632855 = product of:
      0.04653142 = sum of:
        0.04653142 = weight(_text_:22 in 613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04653142 = score(doc=613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12026694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03434403 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=613)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Password. 2002, H.6, S.22-25

0.001974161 = product of:
  0.009870805 = sum of:
    0.009870805 = product of:
      0.03948322 = sum of:
        0.03948322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03948322 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12026694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03434403 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:22:35

0.0018612568 = product of:
  0.009306284 = sum of:
    0.009306284 = product of:
      0.037225135 = sum of:
        0.037225135 = weight(_text_:22 in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037225135 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12026694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03434403 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

17.12.2013 11:02:22

0.0016285995 = product of:
  0.0081429975 = sum of:
    0.0081429975 = product of:
      0.03257199 = sum of:
        0.03257199 = weight(_text_:22 in 6920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03257199 = score(doc=6920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12026694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03434403 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6920, 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=6920)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

16.12.2001 14:01:22

0.0016285995 = product of:
  0.0081429975 = sum of:
    0.0081429975 = product of:
      0.03257199 = sum of:
        0.03257199 = weight(_text_:22 in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03257199 = score(doc=40,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12026694 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03434403 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 40, 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=40)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

17.11.2020 12:22:59