Search (138 results, page 1 of 7)

0.108608164 = product of:
  0.43443266 = sum of:
    0.43443266 = weight(_text_:jin in 3638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.43443266 = score(doc=3638,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.5488268 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.443371 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.791566 = fieldWeight in 3638, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          8.443371 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3638)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Hirsch-type indices are studied with special attention to the AR**2-index introduced by Jin. The article consists of two parts: a theoretical part and a practical illustration. In the theoretical part, we recall the definition of the AR**2-index and show that an alternative definition, the so-called AR**2,1, does not have the properties expected for this type of index. A practical example shows the existence of some of these mathematical properties and illustrates the difference between different h-type indices. Clearly the h-index itself is the most robust of all. It is shown that excluding so-called non-WoS source articles may have a significant influence on the R-and, especially, the g-index.

0.07679757 = product of:
  0.30719027 = sum of:
    0.30719027 = weight(_text_:jin in 3232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30719027 = score(doc=3232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5488268 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.443371 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.5597217 = fieldWeight in 3232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.443371 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3232)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.07679757 = product of:
  0.30719027 = sum of:
    0.30719027 = weight(_text_:jin in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.30719027 = score(doc=2348,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5488268 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.443371 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.5597217 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.443371 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The present work shows the applying of successive H indices in the evaluation of a scientific institution, using the researcher-department-institution hierarchy as level of aggregation. The scientific production covered by the Web of Science of the researcher's staff from the Cuban National Scientific Research Center, during the period 2001-2005, was studied. The Hirsch index (h-index; J.E. Hirsch, 2005) was employed to calculate the individual performance of the staff, using the g-index created by Leo Egghe (2006) and the A-index developed by Jin Bi-Hui (2006) as complementary indicators. The successive H indices proposed by András Schubert (2007) were used to determine the scientific performance of each department as well as the general performance of the institution. The possible advantages of the method for the institutional evaluation processes were exposed.

0.06399797 = product of:
  0.25599188 = sum of:
    0.25599188 = weight(_text_:jin in 3694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.25599188 = score(doc=3694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.5488268 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.443371 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.46643472 = fieldWeight in 3694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.443371 = idf(docFreq=25, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3694)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Research evaluation is increasingly popular and important among research funding bodies and science policy makers. Various indicators have been proposed to evaluate the standing of individual scientists, institutions, journals, or countries. A simple and popular one among the indicators is the h-index, the Hirsch index (Hirsch 2005), which is an indicator for lifetime achievement of a scholar. Several other indicators have been proposed to complement or balance the h-index. However, these indicators have no conception of aging. The AR-index (Jin et al. 2007) incorporates aging but divides the received citation counts by the raw age of the publication. Consequently, the decay of a publication is very steep and insensitive to disciplinary differences. In addition, we believe that a publication becomes outdated only when it is no longer cited, not because of its age. Finally, all indicators treat citations as equally material when one might reasonably think that a citation from a heavily cited publication should weigh more than a citation froma non-cited or little-cited publication.We propose a new indicator, the Discounted Cumulated Impact (DCI) index, which devalues old citations in a smooth way. It rewards an author for receiving new citations even if the publication is old. Further, it allows weighting of the citations by the citation weight of the citing publication. DCI can be used to calculate research performance on the basis of the h-core of a scholar or any other publication data.

0.05616238 = product of:
  0.11232476 = sum of:
    0.044685647 = weight(_text_:und in 4081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044685647 = score(doc=4081,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.14416547 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.3099608 = fieldWeight in 4081, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4081)
    0.06763911 = weight(_text_:headings in 4081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06763911 = score(doc=4081,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31541052 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.21444786 = fieldWeight in 4081, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4081)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Die Arbeit analysiert die dynamische Entwicklung und den Gebrauch von Thesaurusbegriffen. Zusätzlich konzentriert sie sich auf die Faktoren, die die Zahl von Indexbegriffen pro Dokument oder Zeitschrift beeinflussen. Als Untersuchungsobjekt dienten der MeSH und die entsprechende Datenbank "MEDLINE". Die wichtigsten Konsequenzen sind: 1. Der MeSH-Thesaurus hat sich durch drei unterschiedliche Phasen jeweils logarithmisch entwickelt. Solch einen Thesaurus sollte folgenden Gleichung folgen: "T = 3.076,6 Ln (d) - 22.695 + 0,0039d" (T = Begriffe, Ln = natürlicher Logarithmus und d = Dokumente). Um solch einen Thesaurus zu konstruieren, muss man demnach etwa 1.600 Dokumente von unterschiedlichen Themen des Bereiches des Thesaurus haben. Die dynamische Entwicklung von Thesauri wie MeSH erfordert die Einführung eines neuen Begriffs pro Indexierung von 256 neuen Dokumenten. 2. Die Verteilung der Thesaurusbegriffe erbrachte drei Kategorien: starke, normale und selten verwendete Headings. Die letzte Gruppe ist in einer Testphase, während in der ersten und zweiten Kategorie die neu hinzukommenden Deskriptoren zu einem Thesauruswachstum führen. 3. Es gibt ein logarithmisches Verhältnis zwischen der Zahl von Index-Begriffen pro Aufsatz und dessen Seitenzahl für die Artikeln zwischen einer und einundzwanzig Seiten. 4. Zeitschriftenaufsätze, die in MEDLINE mit Abstracts erscheinen erhalten fast zwei Deskriptoren mehr. 5. Die Findablity der nicht-englisch sprachigen Dokumente in MEDLINE ist geringer als die englische Dokumente. 6. Aufsätze der Zeitschriften mit einem Impact Factor 0 bis fünfzehn erhalten nicht mehr Indexbegriffe als die der anderen von MEDINE erfassten Zeitschriften. 7. In einem Indexierungssystem haben unterschiedliche Zeitschriften mehr oder weniger Gewicht in ihrem Findability. Die Verteilung der Indexbegriffe pro Seite hat gezeigt, dass es bei MEDLINE drei Kategorien der Publikationen gibt. Außerdem gibt es wenige stark bevorzugten Zeitschriften."

Footnote

Dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft.

Imprint

Berlin : Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin / Institut für Bibliotheks- und Informationswissenschaft

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.041849565 = product of:
  0.16739826 = sum of:
    0.16739826 = weight(_text_:headings in 1862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16739826 = score(doc=1862,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31541052 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.5307314 = fieldWeight in 1862, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1862)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports results of a bibliometric study of the literature of Qigong: a relaxation technique used to teach patients to control their heart rate, blood pressure, temperature and other involuntary functions through controlles breathing. All articles indexed in the MEDLINE CD-ROM database, between 1965 and 1995 were identified using 'breathing exercises' MeSH term. The articles were analyzed for geographical and language distribution and a ranking exercise enabled a core list of periodicals to be identified. In addition, the study shed light on the changing frequency of the MeSH terms and evaluated the research areas by measuring the information from these respective MeSH headings

0.035871055 = product of:
  0.14348422 = sum of:
    0.14348422 = weight(_text_:headings in 1494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14348422 = score(doc=1494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31541052 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1494, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Multiple perspectives on the nonlinear processes of medical innovations can be distinguished and combined using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) of the MEDLINE database. Focusing on three main branches-"diseases," "drugs and chemicals," and "techniques and equipment"-we use base maps and overlay techniques to investigate the translations and interactions and thus to gain a bibliometric perspective on the dynamics of medical innovations. To this end, we first analyze the MEDLINE database, the MeSH index tree, and the various options for a static mapping from different perspectives and at different levels of aggregation. Following a specific innovation (RNA interference) over time, the notion of a trajectory which leaves a signature in the database is elaborated. Can the detailed index terms describing the dynamics of research be used to predict the diffusion dynamics of research results? Possibilities are specified for further integration between the MEDLINE database on one hand, and the Science Citation Index and Scopus (containing citation information) on the other.

0.035871055 = product of:
  0.14348422 = sum of:
    0.14348422 = weight(_text_:headings in 1943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14348422 = score(doc=1943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.31541052 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.4549126 = fieldWeight in 1943, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1943)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citation analysis of documents retrieved from the Medline database (at the Web of Knowledge) has been possible only on a case-by-case basis. A technique is presented here for citation analysis in batch mode using both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) at the Web of Knowledge and the Science Citation Index at the Web of Science (WoS). This freeware routine is applied to the case of "Brugada Syndrome," a specific disease and field of research (since 1992). The journals containing these publications, for example, are attributed to WoS categories other than "cardiac and cardiovascular systems", perhaps because of the possibility of genetic testing for this syndrome in the clinic. With this routine, all the instruments available for citation analysis can now be used on the basis of MeSH terms. Other options for crossing between Medline, WoS, and Scopus are also reviewed.

0.025364667 = product of:
  0.10145867 = sum of:
    0.10145867 = weight(_text_:headings in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10145867 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31541052 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present a model for estimating the probability that a pair of author names (sharing last name and first initial), appearing an two different Medline articles, refer to the same individual. The model uses a simple yet powerful similarity profile between a pair of articles, based an title, journal name, coauthor names, medical subject headings (MeSH), language, affiliation, and name attributes (prevalence in the literature, middle initial, and suffix). The similarity profile distribution is computed from reference sets consisting of pairs of articles containing almost exclusively author matches versus nonmatches, generated in an unbiased manner. Although the match set is generated automatically and might contain a small proportion of nonmatches, the model is quite robust against contamination with nonmatches. We have created a free, public service ("Author-ity": http://arrowsmith.psych.uic.edu) that takes as input an author's name given an a specific article, and gives as output a list of all articles with that (last name, first initial) ranked by decreasing similarity, with match probability indicated.

0.025364667 = product of:
  0.10145867 = sum of:
    0.10145867 = weight(_text_:headings in 3840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10145867 = score(doc=3840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31541052 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 3840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3840)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper explores the ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCR) bibliographic and subject structures through Library of Congress (LC) and American research libraries cataloging and classification methodology. The 2006 Science Citation Index JCR Behavioral Sciences subject category journals are used as an example. From the library perspective, the main fault of the JCR bibliographic structure is that the JCR mistakenly identifies journal title segments as journal bibliographic entities, seriously affecting journal rankings by total cites and the impact factor. In respect to JCR subject structure, the title segment, which constitutes the JCR bibliographic basis, is posited as the best bibliographic entity for the citation measurement of journal subject relationships. Through factor analysis and other methods, the JCR subject categorization of journals is tested against their LC subject headings and classification. The finding is that JCR and library journal subject analyses corroborate, clarify, and correct each other.

0.025364667 = product of:
  0.10145867 = sum of:
    0.10145867 = weight(_text_:headings in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10145867 = score(doc=3224,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31541052 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.32167178 = fieldWeight in 3224, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3224)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

We present a novel routine, namely medlineR, based on the R language, that allows the user to match data from Medline/PubMed with records indexed in the ISI Web of Science (WoS) database. The matching allows exploiting the rich and controlled vocabulary of medical subject headings (MeSH) of Medline/PubMed with additional fields of WoS. The integration provides data (e.g., citation data, list of cited reference, list of the addresses of authors' host organizations, WoS subject categories) to perform a variety of scientometric analyses. This brief communication describes medlineR, the method on which it relies, and the steps the user should follow to perform the matching across the two databases. To demonstrate the differences from Leydesdorff and Opthof (Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076-1080), we conclude this artcle by testing the routine on the MeSH category "Burgada syndrome."

0.02141592 = product of:
  0.08566368 = sum of:
    0.08566368 = weight(_text_:und in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08566368 = score(doc=5133,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14416547 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.5942039 = fieldWeight in 5133, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5133)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Psychologie und Philosophie der Grazer Schule: eine Dokumentation zu Werk und Wirkungsgeschichte. Hrsg.: M. Stock und W.G. Stock

0.021196261 = product of:
  0.084785044 = sum of:
    0.084785044 = weight(_text_:und in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084785044 = score(doc=76,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14416547 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.58810925 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Klassifikation und Erkenntnis I. Proc. der Plenarvorträge und der Sektion 1 "Klassifikation und Wissensgewinnung" der 3. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Königstein/Ts., 5.-6.4.1979

0.01854673 = product of:
  0.07418692 = sum of:
    0.07418692 = weight(_text_:und in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07418692 = score(doc=1154,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14416547 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.5145956 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag werden am Beispiel von Onkologie- und Pharmaziezeitschriften Unterschiede zwischen und Gemeinsamkeiten von Downloads und Zitaten herausgearbeitet. Die Download-Daten wurden von Elsevier (ScienceDirect) bereitgestellt, die Zitationsdaten wurden den Journal Citation Reports entnommen bzw. aus dem Web of Science recherchiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen einen hohen Zusammenhang zwischen Download- und Zitationshäufigkeiten, der für die relativen Zeitschriftenindikatoren und auf Artikelebene etwas geringer ist. Deutliche Unterschiede bestehen hingegen zwischen den Altersstrukturen der herunter-geladenen und der zitierten Artikel. Elektronische Zeitschriften haben maßgeblich dazu beigetragen, dass aktuelle Literatur früher aufgegriffen und deutlich öfter zitiert wird, im Schnitt hat sich das Alter der zitierten Literatur in den letzten zehn Jahren aber kaum verändert.

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 59(2012) H.2, S.87-95

0.018207174 = product of:
  0.072828695 = sum of:
    0.072828695 = weight(_text_:und in 1875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072828695 = score(doc=1875,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.14416547 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.50517434 = fieldWeight in 1875, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1875)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Bereitstellung und Nutzung digitaler Bibliotheken entwickelt sich allmählich zum Standard der Literatur und Informationsversorgung in Wissenschaft und Forschung. Ganzen Disziplinen genügt oftmals die verfügbare digitale Information, Printmedien werden besonders im STM-Segment zu einem Nischenprodukt. Digitale Texte können beliebig eingebaut, kopiert und nachgenutzt werden, die Verlinkung zwischen Metadaten und Volltexten bringt weitere Nutzungsvorteile. Dabei sind die Angebote von Digital Libraries Bestandteil eines ganzheitlichen digitalen Ansatzes, wonach die elektronische Informations- und Literaturversorgung integraler Bestandteil von E-Science (Enhanced Science) oder Cyberinfrastructure darstellt. Hierbei verschmelzen dann Produktion, Diskussion, Distribution und Rezeption der wissenschaftlichen Inhalte auf einer einzigen digitalen Plattform. Damit sind dann nicht nur die Literatur- und Informationsversorgung (Digital Libraries), sondern auch die Wissenschaft selbst digital geworden. Diese dramatische Veränderung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation hat direkte Auswirkungen auf die Messung der Wissenschaftskommunikation, also auf die Evaluation von wissenschaftlichem Output. Bisherige Systeme der Wissenschaftsvermessung basieren hauptsächlich auf bibliometrischen Analysen, d.h. der Quantifizierung des Outputs und dessen Rezeption (Zitierhäufigkeit). Basis dafür sind insbesondere im STM-Bereich die international anerkannten Datenbanken des ISI (Thomson Scientific) insbesondere der Science Citation Index, SCI) oder vielleicht zukünftig das Konkurrenzprodukt SCOPUS des Wissenschaftskonzerns Reed Elsevier. Die Digitalisierung der Wissenschaft in ihrem kompletten Lebenszyklus, die zunehmende Nutzung und Akzeptanz von Dokumentenrepositorien, Institutsservern und anderen elektronischen Publikationsformen im Rahmen von E-Science erfordern und ermöglichen zugleich den Nachweis von Output und Rezeption durch neue bibliometrische Formen, etwa der Webometrie (Webmetrics). Im vorliegenden Paper haben wir hierzu Analysen durchgeführt und stellen eine Abschätzung vor, wie sich der Anteil von webometrisch erfassbarer und zugänglicher wissenschaftlicher Literatur im Vergleich zu Literatur, die mit den Standardsystemen nachgewiesen werden kann im Laufe der letzten Jahre verändert hat. Dabei haben wir unterschiedliche Disziplinen und Länder berücksichtigt. Zudem wird ein Vergleich der webometrischen Nachweisqualität so unterschiedlicher Systeme wie SCI, SCOPUS und Google Scholar vorgestellt.

0.017486025 = product of:
  0.0699441 = sum of:
    0.0699441 = weight(_text_:und in 438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0699441 = score(doc=438,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14416547 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.48516542 = fieldWeight in 438, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=438)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Qualität und Information: Deutscher Dokumentartag 1993; Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, 28.-30.9.1993. Hrsg.: W. Neubauer

0.017486025 = product of:
  0.0699441 = sum of:
    0.0699441 = weight(_text_:und in 505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0699441 = score(doc=505,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14416547 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.48516542 = fieldWeight in 505, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=505)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der Artikel ist Teil einer größeren Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Open Access Publishing zur Erhöhung der Publikations- und damit Karrierechancen von Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen. Es werden drei inhaltlich und methodisch ähnliche sozialwissenschaftliche Zeitschriften verglichen: das Open-Access-Journal "Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung" ("FQS") und die zwei Closed-Access-/Hybridjournale "Zeitschrift für qualitative Forschung" und "Sozialer Sinn". Erhoben wird (a) der jeweilige Frauenanteil unter Redaktions- und Beiratsmitgliedern dieser drei Zeitschriften (N=184 insgesamt), (b) aufwändig rekonstruiert und analysiert wird die Genderstruktur der Autorenschaften aller in den drei Zeitschriften zwischen 2000 und 2008 veröffentlichten Beiträge (Totalerhebung, N=1557 insgesamt).

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 62(2011) H.4, S.173-176

0.016909778 = product of:
  0.06763911 = sum of:
    0.06763911 = weight(_text_:headings in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06763911 = score(doc=3707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.31541052 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.21444786 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) published by Thomson Reuters is often used to evaluate the significance and performance of scientific journals. Besides methodological problems with the JIF, the critical issue is whether a single measure is sufficient for characterizing the impact of journals, particularly the impact of multidisciplinary and wide-scope journals that publish articles in a broad range of research fields. Taking Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society as examples, we examined the two journals' publication and impact profiles across the sections of Chemical Abstracts and compared the results with the JIF. The analysis was based primarily on Communications published in Angewandte Chemie International Edition and the Journal of the American Chemical Society during 2001 to 2005. The findings show that the information available in the Science Citation Index is a rather unreliable indication of the document type and is therefore inappropriate for comparative analysis. The findings further suggest that the composition of the journal in terms of contribution types, the length of the citation window, and the thematic focus of the journal in terms of the sections of Chemical Abstracts has a significant influence on the overall journal citation impact. Therefore, a single measure of journal citation impact such as the JIF is insufficient for characterizing the significance and performance of wide-scope journals. For the comparison of journals, more sophisticated methods such as publication and impact profiles across subject headings of bibliographic databases (e.g., the sections of Chemical Abstracts) are valuable.

0.016522741 = product of:
  0.066090964 = sum of:
    0.066090964 = weight(_text_:und in 779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066090964 = score(doc=779,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.14416547 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.45843822 = fieldWeight in 779, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=779)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Zahlreiche Autoren, Autorinnen und kritische Initiativen (z. B. DORA) kritisieren den zu hohen und schädlichen Einfluss quantitativer Daten, welche akademische Instanzen für Evaluationszwecke heranziehen. Wegen des großen Einflusses der globalen Zitatdatenbanken von Thomson Reuters (bzw. Clarivate Analytics) auf die Bewertung der wissenschaftlichen Leistungen von Forscherinnen und Forschern habe ich extensive qualitative und quantitative Fallstudien zur Datenqualität des Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) durchgeführt, d. h. die Originaleinträge mit den SSCI-Datensätzen verglichen. Diese Fallstudien zeigten schwerste - nie in der Literatur erwähnte - Fehler, Verstümmelungen, Phantomautoren, Phantomwerke (Fehlerrate in der Fallstudie zu Beebe 2010, Harvard Law Review: 99 Prozent). Über die verwendeten Datenerfassungs- und Indexierungsverfahren von TR bzw. Clarivate Analytics ist nur wenig bekannt. Ein Ergebnis meiner Untersuchungen: Bei der Indexierung von Verweisen in Fußnoten (wie in den Rechtswissenschaften, gerade auch der USA, vorgeschrieben) scheinen die verwendeten Textanalyse-Anwendungen und -Algorithmen völlig überfordert. Eine Qualitätskontrolle scheint nicht stattzufinden. Damit steht der Anspruch des SSCI als einer multidisziplinären Datenbank zur Debatte. Korrekte Zitate in den Fußnoten des Originals können zu Phantom-Autoren, Phantom-Werken und Phantom-Referenzen degenerieren. Das bedeutet: Sämtliche Zeitschriften und Disziplinen, deren Zeitschriften und Büchern dieses oder ähnliche Zitierverfahren verwenden (Oxford-Style), laufen Gefahr, aufgrund starker Zitatverluste falsch, d. h. unterbewertet, zu werden. Wie viele UBOs (Unidentifiable Bibliographic Objects) sich in den Datenbanken SCI, SSCI und AHCI befinden, wäre nur mit sehr aufwändigen Prozeduren zu klären. Unabhängig davon handelt es sich, wie bei fast allen in meinen Untersuchungen gefundenen fatalen Fehlern, eindeutig um endogene Fehler in den Datenbanken, die nicht, wie oft behauptet, angeblich falsch zitierenden Autorinnen und Autoren zugeschrieben werden können, sondern erst im Laufe der Dateneingabe und -verarbeitung entstehen.

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 70(2019) H.5/6, S.241-248

0.016356679 = product of:
  0.065426715 = sum of:
    0.065426715 = weight(_text_:und in 218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065426715 = score(doc=218,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14416547 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.065000914 = queryNorm
        0.4538307 = fieldWeight in 218, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=218)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die International Mathematical Union (IMU) hat in Kooperation mit dem "International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM)" und dem "Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS)" einen Bericht mit dem Titel Citation Statistics herausgegeben, für den das "Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research", bestehend aus Robert Adler, John Ewing (Chair) und Peter Taylor verantwortlich zeichnet. Wir drucken im Folgenden zunächst das "Executive Summary" dieses Berichts ab und geben anschließend einen Überblick über einige der wichtigsten Argumente und Ergebnisse des Berichts. Die darin wiedergegebenen Tabellen und Grafiken sind dem Bericht entnommen, wir danken den Autoren für die Genehmigung des Abdrucks des Executive Summary und dieser Tabellen und Grafiken. Soweit wir den Bericht in Übersetzung zitieren, handelt es sich nicht um eine autorisierte Übersetzung.