Diese Datenbank enthält über 40.000 Dokumente zu Themen aus den Bereichen Formalerschließung – Inhaltserschließung – Information Retrieval.
© 2015 W. Gödert, TH Köln, Institut für Informationswissenschaft / Powered by litecat, BIS Oldenburg (Stand: 04. Juni 2021)
1West, J.D. ; Jensen, M.C. ; Dandrea, R.J. ; Gordon, G.J. ; Bergstrom, C.T.: Author-level Eigenfactor metrics : evaluating the influence of authors, institutions, and countries within the social science research network community.
In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.787-801.
Abstract: In this article, we show how the Eigenfactor score, originally designed for ranking scholarly journals, can be adapted to rank the scholarly output of authors, institutions, and countries based on author-level citation data. Using the methods described in this article, we provide Eigenfactor rankings for 84,808 disambiguated authors of 240,804 papers in the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)-a preprint and postprint archive devoted to the rapid dissemination of scholarly research in the social sciences and humanities. As an additive metric, the Eigenfactor scores are readily computed for collectives such as departments or institutions as well. We show that a collective's Eigenfactor score can be computed either by summing the Eigenfactor scores of its members or by working directly with a collective-level cross-citation matrix. We provide Eigenfactor rankings for institutions and countries in the SSRN repository. With a network-wide comparison of Eigenfactor scores and download tallies, we demonstrate that Eigenfactor scores provide information that is both different from and complementary to that provided by download counts. We see author-level ranking as one filter for navigating the scholarly literature, and note that such rankings generate incentives for more open scholarship, because authors are rewarded for making their work available to the community as early as possible and before formal publication.
2West, J. ; Bergstrom, T. ; Bergstrom, C.T.: Big Macs and Eigenfactor scores : don't let correlation coefficients fool you.
In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.9, S.1800-1807.
Abstract: The Eigenfactor(TM) Metrics provide an alternative way of evaluating scholarly journals based on an iterative ranking procedure analogous to Google's PageRank algorithm. These metrics have recently been adopted by Thomson Reuters and are listed alongside the Impact Factor in the Journal Citation Reports. But do these metrics differ sufficiently so as to be a useful addition to the bibliometric toolbox? Davis (2008) has argued that they do not, based on his finding of a 0.95 correlation coefficient between Eigenfactor score and Total Citations for a sample of journals in the field of medicine. This conclusion is mistaken; in this article, we illustrate the basic statistical fallacy to which Davis succumbed. We provide a complete analysis of the 2006 Journal Citation Reports and demonstrate that there are statistically and economically significant differences between the information provided by the Eigenfactor Metrics and that provided by Impact Factor and Total Citations.
Objekt: Journal Citation Reports
3Althouse, B.M. ; West, J.D. ; Bergstrom, C.T. ; Bergstrom, T.: Differences in impact factor across fields and over time.
In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.1, S.27-34.
Abstract: The bibliometric measure impact factor is a leading indicator of journal influence, and impact factors are routinely used in making decisions ranging from selecting journal subscriptions to allocating research funding to deciding tenure cases. Yet journal impact factors have increased gradually over time, and moreover impact factors vary widely across academic disciplines. Here we quantify inflation over time and differences across fields in impact factor scores and determine the sources of these differences. We find that the average number of citations in reference lists has increased gradually, and this is the predominant factor responsible for the inflation of impact factor scores over time. Field-specific variation in the fraction of citations to literature indexed by Thomson Scientific's Journal Citation Reports is the single greatest contributor to differences among the impact factors of journals in different fields. The growth rate of the scientific literature as a whole, and cross-field differences in net size and growth rate of individual fields, have had very little influence on impact factor inflation or on cross-field differences in impact factor.