-
Haley, M.R.: On the normalization and distributional adjustment of journal ranking metrics : a simple parametric approach (2017)
0.01
0.0068851607 = product of:
0.017212901 = sum of:
0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 3653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010897844 = score(doc=3653,freq=8.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3653, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3653)
0.006315058 = product of:
0.012630116 = sum of:
0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 3653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012630116 = score(doc=3653,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3653, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3653)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This paper presents a simple parametric statistical approach to comparing different citation-based journal ranking metrics within a single academic field. The mechanism can also be used to compare the same metric across different academic fields. The mechanism operates by selecting an optimal normalization factor and an optimal distributional adjustment for the rank-score curve, both of which are instrumental in making sound intermetric and interfield journal comparisons.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.6, S.1590-1593
- Type
- a
-
Haley, M.R.: ¬A simple paradigm for augmenting the Euclidean index to reflect journal impact and visibility (2020)
0.01
0.006334501 = product of:
0.015836252 = sum of:
0.009138121 = weight(_text_:a in 5676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009138121 = score(doc=5676,freq=10.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 5676, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5676)
0.0066981306 = product of:
0.013396261 = sum of:
0.013396261 = weight(_text_:information in 5676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013396261 = score(doc=5676,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 5676, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5676)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This article offers an adjustment to the recently developed Euclidean Index (Perry and Reny, 2016). The proposed companion metric reflects the impact of the journal in which an article appears; the rationale for incorporating this information is to reflect higher costs of production and higher review standards, and to mitigate the heavily truncated citation counts that often arise in promotion, renewal, and tenure deliberations. Additionally, focusing jointly on citations and journal impact diversifies the assessment process, and can thereby help avoid misjudging scholars with modest citation counts in high-level journals. A combination of both metrics is also proposed, which nests each as a special case. The approach is demonstrated using a generic journal ranking metric, but can be adapted to most any stated or revealed preference measure of journal impact.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.3, S.370-373
- Type
- a
-
Haley, M.R.; McGee, M.K.: ¬A parametric "parent metric" approach for comparing maximum-normalized journal ranking metrics (2018)
0.01
0.0063011474 = product of:
0.015752869 = sum of:
0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009437811 = score(doc=3313,freq=6.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
0.006315058 = product of:
0.012630116 = sum of:
0.012630116 = weight(_text_:information in 3313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012630116 = score(doc=3313,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3313, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3313)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This article proposes a parametric approach for facilitating inter-metric and inter-field comparisons of citation-based journal ranking metrics. The mechanism is simple to apply and adjusts for metric magnitude differentials and distributional asymmetries in the rank-score curves. The method is demonstrated using h-index, AWCR-index, g-index, and e-index data from journals in Accounting, Economics, and Finance.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.172-176
- Type
- a
-
Haley, M.R.: Ranking top economics and finance journals using Microsoft academic search versus Google scholar : How does the new publish or perish option compare? (2014)
0.00
0.0042062993 = product of:
0.0105157485 = sum of:
0.005779455 = weight(_text_:a in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005779455 = score(doc=1255,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
0.0047362936 = product of:
0.009472587 = sum of:
0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 1255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009472587 = score(doc=1255,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1255, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1255)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Recently, Harzing's Publish or Perish software was updated to include Microsoft Academic Search as a second citation database search option for computing various citation-based metrics. This article explores the new search option by scoring 50 top economics and finance journals and comparing them with the results obtained using the original Google Scholar-based search option. The new database delivers significantly smaller scores for all metrics, but the rank correlations across the two databases for the h-index, g-index, AWCR, and e-index are significantly correlated, especially when the time frame is restricted to more recent years. Comparisons are also made to the Article Influence score from eigenfactor.org and to the RePEc h-index, both of which adjust for journal-level self-citations.
- Source
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1079-1084
- Type
- a
