The Experts below are selected from a list of 52602 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Hansdieter Daniel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Convergent Validity of bibliometric google scholar data in the field of chemistry citation counts for papers that were accepted by angewandte chemie international edition or rejected but published elsewhere using google scholar science citation index scopus and chemical abstracts
Journal of Informetrics, 2009Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx, Hermann Schier, Erhard Rahm, Andreas Thor, Hansdieter DanielAbstract:Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n=1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the Convergent Validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of Convergent Validity of the citation analysis based on the GS data.
-
Convergent Validity of bibliometric google scholar data in the field of chemistry citation counts for papers that were accepted by angewandte chemie international edition or rejected but published elsewhere using google scholar science citation index scopus and chemical abstracts
Journal of Informetrics, 2009Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx, Hermann Schier, Erhard Rahm, Andreas Thor, Hansdieter DanielAbstract:Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n = 1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the Convergent Validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of Convergent Validity of the citation analysis
Lutz Bornmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Convergent Validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts
Journal of Informetrics, 2021Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Alexander TeklesAbstract:Abstract This study focuses on a recently introduced type of indicator measuring disruptiveness in science. Disruptive research diverges from current lines of research by opening up new lines. In the current study, we included the initially proposed indicator of this new type (Funk & Owen-Smith, 2017; Wu, Wang, & Evans, 2019) and several variants with DI1: DI5, DI1n, DI5n, and DEP. Since indicators should measure what they propose to measure, we investigated the Convergent Validity of the indicators. We used a list of milestone papers, selected and published by editors of Physical Review Letters, and investigated whether this human (experts)-based list is related to values of the several disruption indicators variants and – if so – which variants show the highest correlation with expert judgements. We used bivariate statistics, multiple regression models, and (coarsened) exact matching (CEM) to investigate the Convergent Validity of the indicators. The results show that the indicators correlate differently with the milestone paper assignments by the editors. It is not the initially proposed disruption index that performed best (DI1), but the variant DI5 which has been introduced by Bornmann, Devarakonda, Tekles, and Chacko (2020a). In the CEM analysis of this study, the DEP variant – introduced by Bu, Waltman, and Huang (in press) – also showed favorable results.
-
Convergent Validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2020Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Alexander TeklesAbstract:This study focuses on a recently introduced type of indicator measuring disruptiveness in science. Disruptive research diverges from current lines of research by opening up new lines. In the current study, we included the initially proposed indicator of this new type (Wu, Wang, & Evans, 2019) and several variants with DI1: DI5, DI1n, DI5n, and DEP. Since indicators should measure what they propose to measure, we investigated the Convergent Validity of the indicators. We used a list of milestone papers, selected and published by editors of Physical Review Letters, and investigated whether this human (experts - based list is related to values of the several disruption indicators variants and - if so - which variants show the highest correlation with expert judgements. We used bivariate statistics, multiple regression models, and (coarsened) exact matching (CEM) to investigate the Convergent Validity of the indicators. The results show that the indicators correlate differently with the milestone paper assignments by the editors. It is not the initially proposed disruption index that performed best (DI1), but the variant DI5 which has been introduced by Bornmann, Devarakonda, Tekles, and Chacko (2019). In the CEM analysis of this study, the DEP variant - introduced by Bu, Waltman, and Huang (2019) - also showed favorable results.
-
do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies an empirical test of the Convergent Validity of altmetrics based on data from the uk research excellence framework ref
Journal of Informetrics, 2019Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Robin Haunschild, Jonathan AdamsAbstract:Abstract Altmetrics have been proposed as a way to assess the societal impact of research. Although altmetrics are already in use as impact or attention metrics in different contexts, it is still not clear whether they really capture or reflect societal impact. This study is based on altmetrics, citation counts, research output and case study data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF), and peers’ REF assessments of research output and societal impact. We investigated the Convergent Validity of altmetrics by using two REF datasets: publications submitted as research output (PRO) to the REF and publications referenced in case studies (PCS). Case studies, which are intended to demonstrate societal impact, should cite the most relevant research papers. We used the MHq’ indicator for assessing impact – an indicator which has been introduced for count data with many zeros. The results of the first part of the analysis show that news media as well as mentions on Facebook, in blogs, in Wikipedia, and in policy-related documents have higher MHq’ values for PCS than for PRO. Thus, the altmetric indicators seem to have Convergent Validity for these data. In the second part of the analysis, altmetrics have been correlated with REF reviewers’ average scores on PCS. The negative or close to zero correlations question the Convergent Validity of altmetrics in that context. We suggest that they may capture a different aspect of societal impact (which can be called unknown attention) to that seen by reviewers (who are interested in the causal link between research and action in society).
-
how well does i3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators the Convergent Validity of several field normalized indicators
arXiv: Digital Libraries, 2019Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Alexander Tekles, Loet LeydesdorffAbstract:Recently, the integrated impact indicator (I3) indicator was introduced where citations are weighted in accordance with the percentile rank class of each publication in a set of publications. I3 can also be used as a field-normalized indicator. Field-normalization is common practice in bibliometrics, especially when institutions and countries are compared. Publication and citation practices are so different among fields that citation impact is normalized for cross-field comparisons. In this study, we test the ability of the indicator to discriminate between quality levels of papers as defined by Faculty members at F1000Prime. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system for assessing papers in the biomedical area. Thus, we test the Convergent Validity of I3 (in this study, we test I3/N - the size-independent variant of I3 where I3 is divided by the number of papers) using assessments by peers as baseline and compare its Validity with several other (field-normalized) indicators: the mean-normalized citation score (MNCS), relative-citation ratio (RCR), citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR), characteristic scores and scales (CSS), source-normalized citation score (SNCS), citation percentile, and proportion of papers which belong to the x% most frequently cited papers (PPtop x%). The results show that the PPtop 1% indicator discriminates best among different quality levels. I3 performs similar as (slightly better than) most of the other field-normalized indicators. Thus, the results point out that the indicator could be a valuable alternative to other indicators in bibliometrics.
-
interrater reliability and Convergent Validity of f1000prime peer review
Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015Co-Authors: Lutz BornmannAbstract:Peer review is the backbone of modern science. F1000Prime is a postpublication peer review system of the biomedical literature papers from medical and biological journals. This study is concerned with the interrater reliability and Convergent Validity of the peer recommendations formulated in the F1000Prime peer review system. The study is based on about 100,000 papers with recommendations from faculty members. Even if intersubjectivity plays a fundamental role in science, the analyses of the reliability of the F1000Prime peer review system show a rather low level of agreement between faculty members. This result is in agreement with most other studies that have been published on the journal peer review system. Logistic regression models are used to investigate the Convergent Validity of the F1000Prime peer review system. As the results show, the proportion of highly cited papers among those selected by the faculty members is significantly higher than expected. In addition, better recommendation scores are also associated with higher performing papers.
Werner Marx - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Convergent Validity of bibliometric google scholar data in the field of chemistry citation counts for papers that were accepted by angewandte chemie international edition or rejected but published elsewhere using google scholar science citation index scopus and chemical abstracts
Journal of Informetrics, 2009Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx, Hermann Schier, Erhard Rahm, Andreas Thor, Hansdieter DanielAbstract:Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n=1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the Convergent Validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of Convergent Validity of the citation analysis based on the GS data.
-
Convergent Validity of bibliometric google scholar data in the field of chemistry citation counts for papers that were accepted by angewandte chemie international edition or rejected but published elsewhere using google scholar science citation index scopus and chemical abstracts
Journal of Informetrics, 2009Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx, Hermann Schier, Erhard Rahm, Andreas Thor, Hansdieter DanielAbstract:Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n = 1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the Convergent Validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of Convergent Validity of the citation analysis
Hermann Schier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Convergent Validity of bibliometric google scholar data in the field of chemistry citation counts for papers that were accepted by angewandte chemie international edition or rejected but published elsewhere using google scholar science citation index scopus and chemical abstracts
Journal of Informetrics, 2009Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx, Hermann Schier, Erhard Rahm, Andreas Thor, Hansdieter DanielAbstract:Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n=1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the Convergent Validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of Convergent Validity of the citation analysis based on the GS data.
-
Convergent Validity of bibliometric google scholar data in the field of chemistry citation counts for papers that were accepted by angewandte chemie international edition or rejected but published elsewhere using google scholar science citation index scopus and chemical abstracts
Journal of Informetrics, 2009Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx, Hermann Schier, Erhard Rahm, Andreas Thor, Hansdieter DanielAbstract:Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n = 1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the Convergent Validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of Convergent Validity of the citation analysis
Erhard Rahm - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Convergent Validity of bibliometric google scholar data in the field of chemistry citation counts for papers that were accepted by angewandte chemie international edition or rejected but published elsewhere using google scholar science citation index scopus and chemical abstracts
Journal of Informetrics, 2009Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx, Hermann Schier, Erhard Rahm, Andreas Thor, Hansdieter DanielAbstract:Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n=1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the Convergent Validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of Convergent Validity of the citation analysis based on the GS data.
-
Convergent Validity of bibliometric google scholar data in the field of chemistry citation counts for papers that were accepted by angewandte chemie international edition or rejected but published elsewhere using google scholar science citation index scopus and chemical abstracts
Journal of Informetrics, 2009Co-Authors: Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx, Hermann Schier, Erhard Rahm, Andreas Thor, Hansdieter DanielAbstract:Examining a comprehensive set of papers (n = 1837) that were accepted for publication by the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition (one of the prime chemistry journals in the world) or rejected by the journal but then published elsewhere, this study tested the extent to which the use of the freely available database Google Scholar (GS) can be expected to yield valid citation counts in the field of chemistry. Analyses of citations for the set of papers returned by three fee-based databases – Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts – were compared to the analysis of citations found using GS data. Whereas the analyses using citations returned by the three fee-based databases show very similar results, the results of the analysis using GS citation data differed greatly from the findings using citations from the fee-based databases. Our study therefore supports, on the one hand, the Convergent Validity of citation analyses based on data from the fee-based databases and, on the other hand, the lack of Convergent Validity of the citation analysis