Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025640694 = product of:
  0.10256278 = sum of:
    0.10256278 = weight(_text_:higher in 1363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10256278 = score(doc=1363,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35420436 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2415633 = idf(docFreq=638, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06757609 = queryNorm
        0.2895582 = fieldWeight in 1363, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2415633 = idf(docFreq=638, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1363)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Understanding the role of acknowledgments given by researchers in their publications has been a recurrent challenge in the bibliometric field, but relatively unexplored until now. This study presents a general bibliometric analysis on the new "funding acknowledgment" (FA) information available in the Web of Science. All publications covered by the database in 2009 have been analyzed. The presence and length of the FA text, as well as the presence of "peer interactive communication" in the acknowledgments, are related to impact indicators, distribution of papers by fields, countries of the authors, and collaboration level of the papers. It is observed that publications with FAs present a higher impact as compared with publications without them. There are also differences across countries and disciplines in the share of publications with FAs and the acknowledgment of peer interactive communication. China is the country with the highest share of publications acknowledging funding, while the presence of FAs in the humanities and social sciences is very low compared to the more basic disciplines. The presence of peer interactive communication in acknowledgments can be linked to countries that have a strong scientific tradition and are incorporated in scientific networks. Peer interactive communication is also common in the fields of humanities and social sciences and can be linked to lower levels of co-authorship. Observed patterns are explained and topics of future research are proposed.

0.025640694 = product of:
  0.10256278 = sum of:
    0.10256278 = weight(_text_:higher in 1514) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10256278 = score(doc=1514,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35420436 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2415633 = idf(docFreq=638, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06757609 = queryNorm
        0.2895582 = fieldWeight in 1514, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2415633 = idf(docFreq=638, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1514)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The comparison focuses on the methodological choices underlying the different rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university's highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

0.025640694 = product of:
  0.10256278 = sum of:
    0.10256278 = weight(_text_:higher in 1516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10256278 = score(doc=1516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.35420436 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2415633 = idf(docFreq=638, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06757609 = queryNorm
        0.2895582 = fieldWeight in 1516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2415633 = idf(docFreq=638, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1516)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study presents an analysis of the use of bibliographic references by individual scientists in three different research areas. The number and type of references that scientists include in their papers are analyzed, the relationship between the number of references and different impact-based indicators is studied from a multivariable perspective, and the referencing patterns of scientists are related to individual factors such as their age and scientific performance. Our results show inter-area differences in the number, type, and age of references. Within each area, the number of references per document increases with journal impact factor and paper length. Top-performance scientists use in their papers a higher number of references, which are more recent and more frequently covered by the Web of Science. Veteran researchers tend to rely more on older literature and non-Web of Science sources. The longer reference lists of top scientists can be explained by their tendency to publish in high impact factor journals, with stricter reference and reviewing requirements. Long reference lists suggest a broader knowledge on the current literature in a field, which is important to become a top scientist. From the perspective of the "handicap principle theory," the sustained use of a high number of references in an author's oeuvre is a costly behavior that may indicate a serious, comprehensive, and solid research capacity, but that only the best researchers can afford. Boosting papers' citations by artificially increasing the number of references does not seem a feasible strategy.