Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  • × author_ss:"Oppenheim, C."
  1. Oppenheim, C.: Using the h-Index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship (2007) 0.01 
    0.009195855 = product of:
  0.01839171 = sum of:
    0.01839171 = product of:
      0.03678342 = sum of:
        0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03678342 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The recently developed h-index has been applied to the literature produced by senior British-based academics in librarianship and information science. The majority of those evaluated currently hold senior positions in UK information science and librarianship departments; however, a small number of staff in other departments and retired "founding fathers" were analyzed as well. The analysis was carried out using the Web of Science (Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) for the years from 1992 to October 2005, and included both secondauthored papers and self-citations. The top-ranking British information scientist, Peter Willett, has an h-index of 31. However, it was found that Eugene Garfield, the founder of modern citation studies, has an even higher h-index of 36. These results support other studies suggesting that the h-index is a useful tool in the armory of bibliometrics.
  2. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.: ¬The h-index : a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator (2010) 0.01 
    0.008823298 = product of:
  0.017646596 = sum of:
    0.017646596 = product of:
      0.03529319 = sum of:
        0.03529319 = weight(_text_:22 in 4147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03529319 = score(doc=4147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    8. 1.2011 19:22:13
  3. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C.; Rowland, F.: ¬The citation advantage of open-access articles (2008) 0.01 
    0.007663213 = product of:
  0.015326426 = sum of:
    0.015326426 = product of:
      0.030652853 = sum of:
        0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 2374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030652853 = score(doc=2374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052098576 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2374, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Four subjects - ecology, applied mathematics, sociology, and economics - were selected to assess whether there is a citation advantage between journal articles that have an open-access (OA) version on the Internet compared to those articles that are exclusively toll access (TA). Citations were counted using the Web of Science, and the OA status of articles was determined by searching OAIster, OpenDOAR, Google, and Google Scholar. Of a sample of 4,633 articles examined, 2,280 (49%) were OA and had a mean citation count of 9.04 whereas the mean for TA articles was 5.76. There appears to be a clear citation advantage for those articles that are OA as opposed to those that are TA. This advantage, however, varies between disciplines, with sociology having the highest citation advantage, but the lowest number of OA articles, from the sample taken, and ecology having the highest individual citation count for OA articles, but the smallest citation advantage. Tests of correlation or association between OA status and a number of variables were generally found to weak or inconsistent. The cause of this citation advantage has not been determined.

Authors

Years