arXiv subjects

Robin Haunschild

Publications and source records attributed to Robin Haunschild.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2018

Normalization of zero-inflated data: An empirical analysis of a new indicator family and its use with altmetrics data

Recently, two new indicators (Equalized Mean-based Normalized Proportion Cited, EMNPC; Mean-based Normalized Proportion Cited, MNPC) were proposed which are intended for sparse scientometrics data. The indicators compare the proportion of mentioned papers (e.g. on Facebook) of a unit (e.g., a researcher or institution) with the proportion of mentioned papers in the corresponding fields and publication years (the expected values). In this study, we propose a third indicator (Mantel-Haenszel quotient, MHq) belonging to the same indicator family. The MHq is based on the MH analysis - an established method in statistics for the comparison of proportions. We test (using citations and assessments by peers, i.e. F1000Prime recommendations) if the three indicators can distinguish between different quality levels as defined on the basis of the assessments by peers. Thus, we test their convergent validity. We find that the indicator MHq is able to distinguish between the quality levels in most cases while MNPC and EMNPC are not. Since the MHq is shown in this study to be a valid indicator, we apply it to six types of zero-inflated altmetrics data and test whether different altmetrics sources are related to quality. The results for the various altmetrics demonstrate that the relationship between altmetrics (Wikipedia, Facebook, blogs, and news data) and assessments by peers is not as strong as the relationship between citations and assessments by peers. Actually, the relationship between citations and peer assessments is about two to three times stronger than the association between altmetrics and assessments by peers.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2018

Plots for visualizing paper impact and journal impact of single researchers in a single graph

In research evaluation of single researchers, the assessment of paper and journal impact is of interest. High journal impact reflects the ability of researchers to convince strict reviewers, and high paper impact reflects the usefulness of papers for future research. In many bibliometric studies, metrics for journal and paper impact are separately presented. In this paper, we introduce two graph types, which combine both metrics in a single graph. The graphs can be used in research evaluation to visualize the performance of single researchers comprehensively.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2017

The number of linked references of publications in Microsoft Academic in comparison with the Web of Science

In the context of a comprehensive Microsoft Academic (MA) study, we explored in an initial step the quality of linked references data in MA in comparison with Web of Science (WoS). Linked references are the backbone of bibliometrics, because they are the basis of the times cited information in citation indexes. We found that the concordance of linked references between MA and WoS ranges from weak to non-existent for the full sample (publications of the University of Zurich with less than 50 linked references in MA). An analysis with a sample restricted to less than 50 linked references in WoS showed a strong agreement between linked references in MA and WoS.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2017

Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS) of Eugene Garfield's publications

Which studies, theories, and ideas have influenced Eugene Garfield's scientific work? Recently, the method reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS) has been introduced, which can be used to answer this and related questions. Since then, several studies have been published dealing with the historical roots of research fields and scientists. The program CRExplorer (http://www.crexplorer.net) was specifically developed for RPYS. In this study, we use this program to investigate the historical roots of Eugene Garfield's oeuvre.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2017

Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: A new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis

During Eugene Garfield's (EG's) lengthy career as information scientist, he published about 1,500 papers. In this study, we use the impressive oeuvre of EG to introduce a new type of bibliometric networks: keyword co-occurrences networks based on the context of citations, which are referenced in a certain paper set (here: the papers published by EG). The citation context is defined by the words which are located around a specific citation. We retrieved the citation context from Microsoft Academic. To interpret and compare the results of the new network type, we generated two further networks: co-occurrence networks which are based on title and abstract keywords from (1) EG's papers and (2) the papers citing EG's publications. The comparison of the three networks suggests that papers of EG and citation contexts of papers citing EG are semantically more closely related to each other than to titles and abstracts of papers citing EG. This result accords with the use of citations in research evaluation that is based on the premise that citations reflect the cognitive influence of the cited on the citing publication.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2017

Normalization of zero-inflated data: An empirical analysis of a new indicator family

Recently, two new indicators (Equalized Mean-based Normalized Proportion Cited, EMNPC, and Mean-based Normalized Proportion Cited, MNPC) were proposed which are intended for sparse data. We propose a third indicator (Mantel-Haenszel quotient, MHq) belonging to the same indicator family. The MHq is based on the MH analysis - an established method for polling the data from multiple 2x2 contingency tables based on different subgroups. We test (using citations and assessments by peers) if the three indicators can distinguish between different quality levels as defined on the basis of the assessments by peers (convergent validity). We find that the indicator MHq is able to distinguish between the quality levels in most cases while MNPC and EMNPC are not.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2017

Measuring field-normalized impact of papers on specific societal groups: An altmetrics study based on Mendeley data

Bibliometrics is successful in measuring impact, because the target is clearly defined: the publishing scientist who is still active and working. Thus, citations are a target-oriented metric which measures impact on science. In contrast, societal impact measurements based on altmetrics are as a rule intended to measure impact in a broad sense on all areas of society (e.g. science, culture, politics, and economics). This tendency is especially reflected in the efforts to design composite indicators (e.g. the Altmetric attention score). We deem appropriate that not only the impact measurement using citations is target-oriented (citations measure the impact of papers on scientists), but also the measurement of impact using altmetrics. Impact measurements only make sense, if the target group - the recipient of academic papers - is clearly defined. Thus, we extend in this study the field-normalized reader impact indicator proposed by us in an earlier study, which is based on Mendeley data (the mean normalized reader score, MNRS), to a target-oriented field-normalized impact indicator (e.g., MNRS_ED measures reader impact on the sector of educational donation, i.e., teaching). This indicator can show - as demonstrated in empirical examples - the ability of journals, countries, and academic institutions to publish papers which are below or above the average impact of papers on a specific sector in society (e.g., the educational or teaching sector). For example, the method allows to measure the impact of scientific papers on students - controlling for the field in which the papers have been published and their publication year.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2017

t factor: A metric for measuring impact on Twitter

Based on the definition of the well-known h index we propose a t factor for measuring the impact of publications (and other entities) on Twitter. The new index combines tweet and retweet data in a balanced way whereby retweets are seen as data reflecting the impact of initial tweets. The t factor is defined as follows: A unit (single publication, journal, researcher, research group etc.) has factor t if t of its Nt tweets have at least t retweets each and the other (Nt-t) tweets have <=t retweets each.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

How many scientific papers are mentioned in policy-related documents? An empirical investigation using Web of Science and Altmetric data

In this short communication, we provide an overview of a relatively newly provided source of altmetrics data which could possibly be used for societal impact measurements in scientometrics. Recently, Altmetric - a start-up providing publication level metrics - started to make data for publications available which have been mentioned in policy-related documents. Using data from Altmetric, we study how many papers indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) are mentioned in policy-related documents. We find that less than 0.5% of the papers published in different subject categories are mentioned at least once in policy-related documents. Based on our results, we recommend that the analysis of (WoS) publications with at least one policy-related mention is repeated regularly (annually). Mentions in policy-related documents should not be used for impact measurement until new policy-related sites are tracked.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

Expected values in percentile indicators

PP(top x%) is the proportion of papers of a unit (e.g. an institution or a group of researchers), which belongs to the x% most frequently cited papers in the corresponding fields and publication years. It has been proposed that x% of papers can be expected which belongs to the x% most frequently cited papers. In this Letter to the Editor we will present the results of an empirical test whether we can really have this expectation and how strong the deviations from the expected values are when many random samples are drawn from the database.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

Which early works are cited most frequently in climate change research literature? A bibliometric approach based on Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy

This bibliometric analysis focuses on the general history of climate change research and, more specifically, on the discovery of the greenhouse effect. First, the Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS) is applied to a large publication set on climate change of 222,060 papers published between 1980 and 2014. The references cited therein were extracted and analyzed with regard to publications, which are cited most frequently. Second, a new method for establishing a more subject-specific publication set for applying RPYS (based on the co-citations of a marker reference) is proposed (RPYS-CO). The RPYS of the climate change literature focuses on the history of climate change research in total. We identified 35 highly-cited publications across all disciplines, which include fundamental early scientific works of the 19th century (with a weak connection to climate change) and some cornerstones of science with a stronger connection to climate change. By using the Arrhenius (1896) paper as a RPYS-CO marker paper, we selected only publications specifically discussing the discovery of the greenhouse effect and the role of carbon dioxide. Also, we focused on the time period 1800-1850 to reveal the contributions of J.B.J Fourier in terms of cited references. Using different RPYS approaches in this study, we were able to identify the complete range of works of the celebrated icons as well as many less known works relevant for the history of climate change research. The analyses confirmed the potential of the RPYS method for historical studies: Seminal papers are detected on the basis of the references cited by the overall community without any further assumptions.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: How often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?

In the current UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) and the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) societal impact measurements are inherent parts of the national evaluation systems. In this study, we deal with a relatively new form of societal impact measurements. Recently, Altmetric - a start-up providing publication level metrics - started to make data for publications available which have been mentioned in policy documents. We regard this data source as an interesting possibility to specifically measure the (societal) impact of research. Using a comprehensive dataset with publications on climate change as an example, we study the usefulness of the new data source for impact measurement. Only 1.2% (n=2,341) out of 191,276 publications on climate change in the dataset have at least one policy mention. We further reveal that papers published in Nature and Science as well as from the areas "Earth and related environmental sciences" and "Social and economic geography" are especially relevant in the policy context. Given the low coverage of the climate change literature in policy documents, this study can be only a first attempt to study this new source of altmetric data. Further empirical studies are necessary in upcoming years, because mentions in policy documents are of special interest in the use of altmetric data for measuring target-oriented the broader impact of research.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2016

Climate Change Research in View of Bibliometrics

This bibliometric study of a large publication set dealing with research on climate change aims at mapping the relevant literature from a bibliometric perspective and presents a multitude of quantitative data: (1) The growth of the overall publication output as well as (2) of some major subfields, (3) the contributing journals and countries as well as their citation impact, and (4) a title word analysis aiming to illustrate the time evolution and relative importance of specific research topics. The study is based on 222,060 papers published between 1980 and 2014. The total number of papers shows a strong increase with a doubling every 5-6 years. Continental biomass related research is the major subfield, closely followed by climate modeling. Research dealing with adaptation, mitigation, risks, and vulnerability of global warming is comparatively small, but their share of papers increased exponentially since 2005. Research on vulnerability and on adaptation published the largest proportion of very important papers. Research on climate change is quantitatively dominated by the USA, followed by the UK, Germany, and Canada. The citation-based indicators exhibit consistently that the UK has produced the largest proportion of high impact papers compared to the other countries (having published more than 10,000 papers). The title word analysis shows that the term climate change comes forward with time. Furthermore, the term impact arises and points to research dealing with the various effects of climate change. Finally, the term model and related terms prominently appear independent of time, indicating the high relevance of climate modeling.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator

In this paper, a new field-normalized indicator is introduced, which is rooted in early insights in bibliometrics, and is compared with several established field-normalized indicators (e.g. the mean normalized citation score, MNCS, and indicators based on percentile approaches). Garfield (1979) emphasizes that bare citation counts from different fields cannot be compared for evaluative purposes, because the "citation potential" can vary significantly between the fields. Garfield (1979) suggests that "the most accurate measure of citation potential is the average number of references per paper published in a given field". Based on this suggestion, the new indicator is basically defined as follows: the citation count of a focal paper is divided by the mean number of cited references in a field to normalize citations. The new indicator is called citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR). The theoretical analysis of the CSNCR shows that it has the properties of consistency and homogeneous normalization. The close relation of the new indicator to the MNCS is discussed. The empirical comparison of the CSNCR with other field-normalized indicators shows that it is slightly poorer able to field-normalize citation counts than other cited-side normalized indicators (e.g. the MNCS), but its results are favorable compared to two citing-side indicator variants (SNCS indicators). Taken as a whole, the results of this study confirm the ability of established indicators to field-normalize citations.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

Efficiency of research performance and the glass researcher

Abramo and D'Angelo (in press) doubt the validity of established size-independent indicators measuring citation impact and plead in favor of measuring scientific efficiency (by using the Fractional Scientific Strength indicator). This note is intended to comment on some questionable and a few favorable approaches in the paper by Abramo and D'Angelo (in press).

cs.DL↗

arXiv2016

Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): An empirical attempt to study a new field-normalized bibliometric indicator

Hutchins, Yuan, M., and Santangelo (2015) proposed the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) as a new field-normalized impact indicator. This study investigates the RCR by correlating it on the level of single publications with established field-normalized indicators and assessments of the publications by peers. We find that the RCR correlates highly with established field-normalized indicators, but the correlation between RCR and peer assessments is only low to medium.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2015

Networks of reader and country status: An analysis of Mendeley reader statistics

The number of papers published in journals indexed by the Web of Science core collection is steadily increasing. In recent years, nearly two million new papers were published each year; somewhat more than one million papers when primary research papers are considered only (articles and reviews are the document types where primary research is usually reported or reviewed). However, who reads these papers? More precisely, which groups of researchers from which (self-assigned) scientific disciplines and countries are reading these papers? Is it possible to visualize readership patterns for certain countries, scientific disciplines, or academic status groups? One popular method to answer these questions is a network analysis. In this study, we analyze Mendeley readership data of a set of 1,133,224 articles and 64,960 reviews with publication year 2012 to generate three different kinds of networks: (1) The network based on disciplinary affiliations of Mendeley readers contains four groups: (i) biology, (ii) social science and humanities (including relevant computer science), (iii) bio-medical sciences, and (iv) natural science and engineering. In all four groups, the category with the addition "miscellaneous" prevails. (2) The network of co-readers in terms of professional status shows that a common interest in papers is mainly shared among PhD students, Master's students, and postdocs. (3) The country network focusses on global readership patterns: a group of 53 nations is identified as core to the scientific enterprise, including Russia and China as well as two thirds of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2013

Density Functionals that Recognize Covalent, Metallic, and Weak Bonds

Computationally-efficient semilocal approximations of density functional theory at the level of the local spin density approximation (LSDA) or generalized gradient approximation (GGA) poorly describe weak interactions. We show improved descriptions for weak bonds (without loss of accuracy for strong ones) from a newly-developed semilocal meta-GGA (MGGA), by applying it to molecules, surfaces, and solids. We argue that this improvement comes from using the right MGGA dimensionless ingredient to recognize all types of orbital overlap.

cond-mat.mtrl-sci↗