The relation between Pearson's correlation coefficient r and Salton's cosine measure

The relation between Pearson's correlation coefficient and Salton's cosine measure is revealed based on the different possible values of the division of the L1-norm and the L2-norm of a vector. These different values yield a sheaf of increasingly straight lines which form together a cloud of points, being the investigated relation. The theoretical results are tested against the author co-citation relations among 24 informetricians for whom two matrices can be constructed, based on co-citations: the asymmetric occurrence matrix and the symmetric co-citation matrix. Both examples completely confirm the theoretical results. The results enable us to specify an algorithm which provides a threshold value for the cosine above which none of the corresponding Pearson correlations would be negative. Using this threshold value can be expected to optimize the visualization of the vector space

Equalities between h-type indices and definitions of rational h-type indicators

Purpose: To show for which publication-citation arrays h-type indices are equal and to reconsider rational h-type indices. Results for these research questions fill some gaps in existing basic knowledge about h-type indices. Design/methodology/approach: The results and introduction of new indicators are based on well-known definitions. Findings: The research purpose has been reached: answers to the first questions are obtained and new indicators are defined. Research limitations: h-type indices do not meet the Bouyssou-Marchant independence requirement. Practical implications: On the one hand, more insight has been obtained for well-known indices such as the h-and the g-index and on the other hand, simple extensions of existing indicators have been added to the bibliometric toolbox. Relative rational h-type indices are more useful for individuals than the existing absolute ones. Originality/value: Answers to basic questions such as "when are the values of two h-type indices equal" are provided. A new rational h-index is introduced

Hirsch-type equations and bundles

We define Hirsch-type equations and bundles being common generalizations of the defining equations of e.g. Hirsch-bundles, g-bundles and Kosmulski-bundles. In this way, common properties of alle these bundles can be proved. The main result proves basic inequalities for these bundles. They form the basis for convergence results as well as for criteria for these bundles to be impact bundles

Quantitative aspects of the management of the modern (scientific) library

This paper and talk examines aspects of data collection for the management of a modern (scientific) library. We discuss: reports as a public relations and public awareness tool, norms and standards, data gathering and its problems in an electronic environment, indicators, complete and incomplete data (sampling) and their uses

A basic indicator for relative contributions and a remarkable difference between a ratio of averages and an average of ratios

ABSTRAC

H Index Scholar: the h-index for Spanish public universities' professors of humanities and social sciences

[EN] The H-Index Scholar is a bibliometric index that measures the productivity and scientific impact of the academic production in humanities and social sciences by professors and researchers at public Spanish universities. The methodology consisted of counting their publications and citations received in Google Scholar. The main features and characteristics of the index are explained. Despite technical and methodological problems that Google Scholar might have as a source of information, the authors estimate that they do not affect substantially the calculated h and g indexes, probably being the error lower than 10%. The total population analyzed was 40,993 researchers, but data are displayed only for 13,518 researchers, the ones located in the first tertile of their respective areas.[ES] H Index Scholar es un índice bibliométrico sobre la productividad e impacto científico de la producción académica de los profesores e investigadores de universidades públicas españolas en humanidades y ciencias sociales. Se realiza mediante el recuento de sus publicaciones y de las citas bibliográficas que han recibido en Google Scholar. Se describen las principales funciones y características del producto. A pesar de los problemas técnicos y metodológicos que pueda presentar Google Scholar como fuente de información, los autores estiman que no afectan en lo sustancial a los índices h y g ofrecidos, estando dentro de una tasa de error del 10%. La población total analizada ha sido de 40.993 profesores, de los que se visualiza un total de 13.518 situados en el primer tercil de sus respectivas áreas.Trabajo financiado con cargo al proyecto HAR2011-30383-C02-02 de la Dirección General de Investigación y Gestión del Plan Nacional de I+D+I. Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad.Delgado López, E.; Orduña Malea, E.; Jimenez Contreras, E.; Ruiz Pérez, R. (2014). H Index Scholar: el índice H de los profesores de las universidades públicas españolas en humanidades y ciencias sociales. El Profesional de la Información. 23(1):87-94. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2014.ene.11S8794231Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., Fernández, M., & Utrilla, A. M. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477-486. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0183-yArchambault, Eric; Larivière, Vincent (2010). "The limits of bibliometrics for the analysis of the social sciences and humanities literature". World social science report: competing in the knowledge society. Unesco, pp. 251-254.Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329-342. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0115-zArdanuy, J. (2013). Sixty years of citation analysis studies in the humanities (1951-2010). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1751-1755. doi:10.1002/asi.22835Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7Giménez-Toledo, E., & Román-Román, A. (2009). Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: a review and a study towards a model of evaluation. Research Evaluation, 18(3), 201-213. doi:10.3152/095820209x471986Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388-1398. doi:10.1002/asi.22875Hicks, Diana M.; Wang, Jian (2009). "Towards a bibliometric database for the social sciences and humanities" [report]. http://works.bepress.com/diana_hicks/18Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102Jacsó, P. (2008). Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32(1), 102-114. doi:10.1108/14684520810866010Jacso´, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h‐index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 32(3), 437-452. doi:10.1108/14684520810889718Jacsó, P. (2012). Using Google Scholar for journal impact factors and the h‐index in nationwide publishing assessments in academia – siren songs and air‐raid sirens. Online Information Review, 36(3), 462-478. doi:10.1108/14684521211241503Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055-1065. doi:10.1002/asi.20584Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: A comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics, 74(2), 273-294. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0217-xKousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147-2164. doi:10.1002/asi.21608Leydesdorff, L., & Felt, U. (2012). Edited volumes, monographs and book chapters in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI). Journal of Scientometric Research, 1(1), 28-34. doi:10.5530/jscires.2012.1.7Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2Orduña-Malea, Enrique (2012). Propuesta de un modelo de análisis redinformétrico multinivel para el estudio sistémico de las universidades españolas. Valencia: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia [tesis doctoral]Orduña-Malea, E., & Ontalba-Ruipérez, J.-A. (2012). Proposal for a multilevel university cybermetric analysis model. Scientometrics, 95(3), 863-884. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0868-5Orduña-Malea, E., Serrano-Cobos, J., & Lloret-Romero, N. (2009). Las universidades públicas españolas en Google Scholar: presencia y evolución de su publicación académica web. El Profesional de la Informacion, 18(5), 493-500. doi:10.3145/epi.2009.sep.02Thelwall, M. (2002). Research dissemination and invocation on the Web. Online Information Review, 26(6), 413-420. doi:10.1108/14684520210452745Torres-Salinas, D., Ruiz-Pérez, R., & Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2009). Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. El Profesional de la Informacion, 18(5), 501-510. doi:10.3145/epi.2009.sep.03White, H. D., Boell, S. K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C. S., & Cole, F. T. H. (2009). Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1083-1096. doi:10.1002/asi.2104