共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
Péter Vinkler 《Journal of Informetrics》2012,6(2):254-264
The effect of two different calculation methods for obtaining relative impact indicators is modelled. Science policy considerations make it clear that evaluating the sets of publications, the “ratio of the sums” method should be preferred over the “mean of the ratios” method. Accordingly, determining the relative total impact against the mean relative impact of the publications of teams or institutes may be preferred. The special problem caused by relating the number of citations of an individual article to the Garfield (Impact) Factor (or mean citedness) of the publishing journal (or a set of journals selected as standard) lower than zero is demonstrated by examples. The possible effects of the different share of publications in different fields on the value of the “new crown” index are also modelled. The assessment methods using several appropriately weighted indicators which result in a composite index are recommended. The acronym “BMV” is suggested to term the relative impact indicators (e.g. RCR, CPP/JCSm, CPP/FCSm and RW) in scientometrics. 相似文献
3.
Frank‐Thorsten KRELL 《Learned Publishing》2010,23(1):59-62
The journal impact factor is widely used as a performance indicator for single authors (despite its unsuitably in this respect). Hence, authors are increasingly exercised if there is any sign that impact factors are being manipulated. Editors who ask authors to cite relevant papers from their own journal are accused of acting unethically. This is surprising because, besides publishers, authors are the primary beneficiaries of an increased impact factor of the journal in which they publish, and because the citation process is biased anyway. There is growing evidence that quality and relevance are not always the reasons for choosing references. Authors' biases and personal environments as well as strategic considerations are major factors. As long as an editor does not force authors to cite irrelevant papers from their own journal, I consider it as a matter of caretaking for the journal and its authors if an editor brings recent papers to the authors' attention. It would be unfair to authors and disloyal to the publisher if an editor did not try to increase the impact of his/her own journal. 相似文献
4.
In recent years there has been a sharp increase in collaborations among scholars and there are studies on the effects of scientific collaboration on scholars’ performance. This study examines the hypothesis that geographically diverse scientific collaboration is associated with research impact. Here, the approach is differentiated from other studies by: (a) focusing on publications rather than researchers or institutes; (b) considering the geographical diversity of authors of each publication; (c) considering the average number of citations a publication receives per year (time-based normalization of citations) as a surrogate for its impact; and (d) not focusing on a specific country (developed or developing) or region. Analysis of the collected bibliometric data shows that a publication impact is significantly and positively associated with all related geographical collaboration indicators. But publication impact has a stronger association with the numbers of external collaborations at department and institution levels (inter-departmental and inter-institutional collaborations) compared to internal collaborations. Conversely, national collaboration correlates better with impact than international collaboration. 相似文献
5.
《Journal of Informetrics》2020,14(2):101008
The publication indicator of the Finnish research funding system is based on a manual ranking of scholarly publication channels. These ranks, which represent the evaluated quality of the channels, are continuously kept up to date and thoroughly reevaluated every four years by groups of nominated scholars belonging to different disciplinary panels. This expert-based decision-making process is informed by available citation-based metrics and other relevant metadata characterizing the publication channels. The purpose of this paper is to introduce various approaches that can explain the basis and evolution of the quality of publication channels, i.e., ranks. This is important for the academic community, whose research work is being governed using the system. Data-based models that, with sufficient accuracy, explain the level of or changes in ranks provide assistance to the panels in their multi-objective decision making, thus suggesting and supporting the need to use more cost-effective, automated ranking mechanisms. The analysis relies on novel advances in machine learning systems for classification and predictive analysis, with special emphasis on local and global feature importance techniques. 相似文献
6.
7.
Do more distant collaborations have more citation impact? 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Internationally co-authored papers are known to have more citation impact than nationally co-authored paper, on average. However, the question of whether there are systematic differences between pairs of collaborating countries in terms of the citation impact of their joint output, has remained unanswered. On the basis of all scientific papers published in 2000 and co-authored by two or more European countries, we show that citation impact increases with the geographical distance between the collaborating counties. 相似文献
8.
To determine what maximizes the effectiveness of on‐air promotions, as measured by ratings/share changes, this study tested a seven‐part model focusing on the structural salience of network prime‐time promos carried within other prime‐time programs. The results of analysis of more than 5,000 promos carried within 656 videotaped prime‐time hours provided consistent support for the salience model. Results showed significant changes in industry promotional practices over time and significant differences by network, genre, and the familiarity of the program to audiences. Although lead‐in ratings remained the dominant force impacting ratings for series programs (but not sporting events, movies, or specials), promotional salience variables contributed significantly to improved ratings, especially for mid‐rated continuing programs. 相似文献
9.
《Journal of Informetrics》2023,17(4):101448
Policymakers are interested in assessing the effectiveness of the competitive grant funding model in producing impactful research. In the French context, we compare the impact of scientific articles supported by competitive grants with the impact of articles not supported by grants using a probabilistic matching procedure. We rely on publication acknowledgments to retrieve funding information and on citation data to assess the articles’ impact. We find that articles supported by competitive grants receive more citations than articles not supported by grants in the long run, while the difference is not significant in the short run. We find heterogeneity across fields. 相似文献
10.
Michael O. Wirth 《Journal of Media Economics》2013,26(2):39-53
The author argues that cable industry is having increasingly negative impact on broadcast television as its power in both the programing and advertising markets increase. Cable system operaters are having increasing incentives to drop or refuse to add broadcast stations or to relocate them to less desirable channel locations as a means of improving their performance in the markets. The author warns that current trends could be harmful to many broadcast stations, but he is especially pessimistic about the future of independent UHF stations. 相似文献
11.
《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2023,49(1):102614
This qualitative study documents evidence of first year undergraduate students' collaboration processes and information literacy learning while completing research assignments in groups during a semester-long course. Focus group interviews and artifacts collected in the web-based tool Evernote allowed us to conduct an in-depth analysis of students' collaborative behavior in terms of their actions, feelings, and thoughts during information seeking behavior (Kuhlthau, 2004), and of the potential of collaboration for fostering information literacy development.Our analysis revealed that certain conditions should be present to facilitate information literacy learning through collaboration: 1) Technology that enables real-time interaction and both active and passive sharing; 2) Meshing of students' interests through the assignment framing; and 3) Students' acceptance of the collaboration technology as a worthwhile tool.In addition, multiple factors determined the extent of the information literacy learning developed through the collaborative assignment tasks, including group dynamics, prompts for students to teach each other information skills, encouragement of students to share exemplars of notes or written assignments, exposure to different points of view, and time management. 相似文献
12.
Borja González-Pereira Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote Félix Moya-Anegón 《Journal of Informetrics》2010,4(3):379-391
A size-independent indicator of journals’ scientific prestige, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator, is proposed that ranks scholarly journals based on citation weighting schemes and eigenvector centrality. It is designed for use with complex and heterogeneous citation networks such as Scopus. Its computation method is described, and the results of its implementation on the Scopus 2007 dataset is compared with those of an ad hoc Journal Impact Factor, JIF(3y), both generally and within specific scientific areas. Both the SJR indicator and the JIF distributions were found to fit well to a logarithmic law. While the two metrics were strongly correlated, there were also major changes in rank. In addition, two general characteristics were observed. On the one hand, journals’ scientific influence or prestige as computed by the SJR indicator tended to be concentrated in fewer journals than the quantity of citation measured by JIF(3y). And on the other, the distance between the top-ranked journals and the rest tended to be greater in the SJR ranking than in that of the JIF(3y), while the separation between the middle and lower ranked journals tended to be smaller. 相似文献
13.
A new size-independent indicator of scientific journal prestige, the SJR2 indicator, is proposed. This indicator takes into account not only the prestige of the citing scientific journal but also its closeness to the cited journal using the cosine of the angle between the vectors of the two journals’ cocitation profiles. To eliminate the size effect, the accumulated prestige is divided by the fraction of the journal's citable documents, thus eliminating the decreasing tendency of this type of indicator and giving meaning to the scores. Its method of computation is described, and the results of its implementation on the Scopus 2008 dataset is compared with those of an ad hoc Journal Impact Factor, JIF(3y), and SNIP, the comparison being made both overall and within specific scientific areas. All three, the SJR2 indicator, the SNIP indicator and the JIF distributions, were found to fit well to a logarithmic law. Although the three metrics were strongly correlated, there were major changes in rank. In addition, the SJR2 was distributed more equalized than the JIF by Subject Area and almost as equalized as the SNIP, and better than both at the lower level of Specific Subject Areas. The incorporation of the cosine increased the values of the flows of prestige between thematically close journals. 相似文献
14.
Cassidy R. Sugimoto Terrell G. Russell Lokman I. Meho Gary Marchionini 《Library & information science research》2008,30(4):273-281
This article provides the first comparison of citation counts and mentoring impact (MPACT) indicators — indicators that serve to quantify the process of doctoral mentoring. Using a dataset of 120 library and information science (LIS) faculty members in North America, this article examines the correlation between MPACT indicators and citation counts. Results suggest that MPACT indicators measure something distinct from citation counts. The article discusses these distinctions, with emphasis on differences between faculty ranks. It considers possible explanations for weak correlations between citations and mentoring at the full professor rank as well as implications for faculty activity analysis and broader institutional evolution. 相似文献
15.
Despite recent evidence that Microsoft Academic is an extensive source of citation counts for journal articles, it is not known if the same is true for academic books. This paper fills this gap by comparing citations to 16,463 books from 2013 to 2016 in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from Microsoft Academic and Google Books in 17 fields. About 60% of the BKCI books had records in Microsoft Academic, varying by year and field. Citation counts from Microsoft Academic were 1.5 to 3.6 times higher than from BKCI in nine subject areas across all years for books indexed by both. Microsoft Academic found more citations than BKCI because it indexes more scholarly publications and combines citations to different editions and chapters. In contrast, BKCI only found more citations than Microsoft Academic for books in three fields from 2013-2014. Microsoft Academic also found more citations than Google Books in six fields for all years. Thus, Microsoft Academic may be a useful source for the impact assessment of books when comprehensive coverage is not essential. 相似文献
16.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(1):101251
Women have long suffered in both academia and industry from lower status, underrepresentation, unequal treatment, and other challenges based on gender. This paper explores whether a gender-neutral name is associated with the research impact of a scientist by examining three years of citations. The data for this study are derived from publications indexed in ISI's Web of Science (WoS) database from 2009 to 2015. By assigning a name neutralization index score to each author, we investigate the relationship between the neutralization index and citations and find the following results: (1) generally, the more neutral the name, the more citations the publications received; (2) the neutral effect was more pronounced for authors with feminine names than for authors with masculine names. 相似文献
17.
This article studies the internet's impact on expert–citizen interactions in the process of public policymaking. It examines a possible solution to a classical democratic dilemma of citizens' right to participate versus citizens' ability to participate. Through a meta-analysis of the past studies on internet's impact on citizen participation in public policy making, the authors find that the internet has successfully reduced resource difference between policy experts and the citizens as promised. However, the technology itself does not provide all the answers. Exogenous factors such as personal characteristics, decision environment, and institutional factors all play a role in enhancing the impact of the internet. Continued education and institutional innovations are necessary to encourage citizen–expert collaboration and reduce resource difference between the citizens and policy experts. Also, more clearly defined and systematic theoretical and empirical studies are needed to help facilitate our understanding of efficient citizen–expert interactions in public policy making by way of the internet technology. 1 相似文献
18.
This study investigated the impact of a 10‐week program, designed to communicate job‐specific and general company information, on levels of worker satisfaction and work‐unit productivity. Data were collected from assembly line workers in a large health care industrial plant. Differences between scores on a general satisfaction measure administered before and after the program were observed suggesting that attitudes about the organization did improve after the program. When compared with a control period, work‐unit productivity also improved after the program. Implications of these findings for future organizational communication research were discussed. 相似文献
19.
20.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(1):101241
Usage of field-normalized citation scores is a bibliometric standard. Different methods for field-normalization are in use, but also the choice of field-classification system determines the resulting field-normalized citation scores. Using Web of Science data, we calculated field-normalized citation scores using the same formula but different field-classification systems to answer the question if the resulting scores are different or similar. Six field-classification systems were used: three based on citation relations, one on semantic similarity scores (i.e., a topical relatedness measure), one on journal sets, and one on intellectual classifications. Systems based on journal sets and intellectual classifications agree on at least the moderate level. Two out of the three sets based on citation relations also agree on at least the moderate level. Larger differences were observed for the third data set based on citation relations and semantic similarity scores. The main policy implication is that normalized citation impact scores or rankings based on them should not be compared without deeper knowledge of the classification systems that were used to derive these values or rankings. 相似文献