Publikationen
872 Übereinstimmungen gefunden / 1-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 61-75 76-90 91-105 106-120 121-135 136-150 151-165 166-180 181-195 196-210 211-225 226-240 241-255 256-270 271-285 286-300 301-315 316-330 331-345 346-360 361-375 376-390 391-405 406-420 421-435 436-450 451-465 466-480 481-495 496-510 511-525 526-540 541-555 556-570 571-585 586-600 601-615 616-630 631-645 646-660 661-675 676-690 691-705 706-720 721-735 736-750 751-765 766-780 781-795 796-810 811-825 826-840 841-855 856-870 871-872
Are there factors that influence the quality of funding acknowledgements in publications?Möller, T., Scheidt, B., & Meier, A. (2024).Are there factors that influence the quality of funding acknowledgements in publications? In STI2024 (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI2024). Berlin: STI2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14174157 |
Is academic freedom associated with strong science?Lovakov, A. (2024).Is academic freedom associated with strong science? In STI2024 (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI2024). Berlin: STI2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14168639 |
Funding decision and applicants' careers. A case study of an early career grant.Möller, T. (2024).Funding decision and applicants' careers. A case study of an early career grant. In STI2024 (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI2024). Berlin: STI2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14171970 |
Evidence base of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines – A bibliometric comparison of Germany and the UK.Aman, V., & Sorgatz, N. (2024).Evidence base of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines – A bibliometric comparison of Germany and the UK. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI2024). Berlin: STI2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14168202 |
Exploring a Critical Methodological Gap in Measuring of Field-Differences in Survey Research: Insights into Scientific Data Sharing and Beyond.Tcypina, A. (2024).Exploring a Critical Methodological Gap in Measuring of Field-Differences in Survey Research: Insights into Scientific Data Sharing and Beyond. In STI2024 (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI2024). Berlin: STI2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14161803 |
Ergebnisse der Trendumfrage Forschungsdateninfrastrukturen 2024.Hartstein, J., & Blümel, C. (2024).Ergebnisse der Trendumfrage Forschungsdateninfrastrukturen 2024. Hannover: Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14093010 Abstract
Die Trendumfrage FDI 2024 ist Teil der Begleitforschung zu den NFDI-Basisdiensten (Base4NFDI). Wir betrachten in der vorliegenden Umfrage Wahrnehmung, Nutzung und Bewertung bestehender und neuer Dateninfrastukturen und Dienste in der deutschen Forschungslandschaft. Die Trendumfrage adressiert die Perspektive der (potentiellen) Nutzenden. |
Data inaccuracy quantification and uncertainty propagation for bibliometric indicators.Donner, P. (2024).Data inaccuracy quantification and uncertainty propagation for bibliometric indicators. Research Evaluation, 33. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae047 Abstract
This study introduces an approach to estimate the uncertainty in bibliometric indicator values that is caused by data errors. This approach utilizes Bayesian regression models, estimated from empirical data samples, which are used to predict error-free data. Through direct Monte Carlo simulation—drawing many replicates of predicted data from the estimated regression models for the same input data—probability distributions for indicator values can be obtained which provide the information on their uncertainty due to data errors. [...] |
Evidence use in higher education decision-making and policy: a scoping review of empirical studies from 2010 to 2022.Thiedig, C., & Wegner, A. (2024).Evidence use in higher education decision-making and policy: a scoping review of empirical studies from 2010 to 2022. London Review of Education, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.14324/LRE.22.1.36 |
Die Forschungs- und Arbeitsbedingungen internationaler Wissenschaftler:innen an deutschen Hochschulen.Fabian, G., & Heger, C. (2024).Die Forschungs- und Arbeitsbedingungen internationaler Wissenschaftler:innen an deutschen Hochschulen. In DAAD/DZHW (Hrsg.), Wissenschaft weltoffen. Daten und Fakten zur Internationalität von Studium und Forschung in Deutschland und weltweit. (S. 82-85). Bielefeld: wbv. https://doi.org/10.3278/9783763978021 |
The research and working conditions of international scientists at German universities.Fabian, G., & Heger, C. (2024).The research and working conditions of international scientists at German universities. In DAAD/DZHW (Hrsg.), Wissenschaft weltoffen 2024. Facts and Figures on the International Nature of Studies and Research in Germany and Worldwide. (S. 82-85). Bielefeld: wbv. |
DZHW-Wissenschaftsbefragung 2023. Daten- und Methodenbericht zur DZHW-Wissenschaftsbefragung 2023.Fabian, G., Heger, C., Just, A., & Weber, A. (2024).DZHW-Wissenschaftsbefragung 2023. Daten- und Methodenbericht zur DZHW-Wissenschaftsbefragung 2023. Hannover: DZHW. https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:scs2023-dmr:1.0.0 Abstract
Die DZHW-Wissenschaftsbefragung 2023 ist eine Onlinebefragung des hauptberuflichen wissenschaftlich-künstlerischen Personals an deutschen Universitäten und gleichgestellten Hochschulen mit Promotionsrecht. Sie wird als Trendstudie zur Erforschung der Arbeits- und Forschungsbedingungen an deutschen Universitäten und gleichgestellten Hochschulen in regelmäßigen Abständen wiederholt. Die DZHW-Wissenschaftsbefragung 2023 wurde von Januar bis März 2023 durchgeführt. Die Befragten blicken also retrospektiv auf ihre Arbeits- und Forschungsbedingungen während der Covid-19-Pandemie sowie auf ihre aktuelle postpandemische Situation. [...] Vollständiger Abstract: https://doi.org/10.21249/DZHW:scs2023:1.0.0 |
Assessing bibliodiversity through reference lists: A text analysis approach.Cruz Romero, R., Stephen, D., & Stahlschmidt, S. (2024).Assessing bibliodiversity through reference lists: A text analysis approach. In STI2024 (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI2024) (S. 1-14). Berlin: STI2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14045592 Abstract
The presence or absence of publishers in large bibliographic databases highlights tangible and symbolic differences between small and large publishers, underlining their diverging incentive structures. To assess these differences, this contribution explores reference data from small (open access) publishers and their journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. The analysis focuses on references that are not indexed in these databases and examines them from a text-as-data approach. The study frames two dimensions of relevance - visibility and impact - as proxies for assessing the scholarly bibliodiversity represented by small (open access) publishers. |
Why do some retracted articles continue to get cited?Schmidt, M. (2024).Why do some retracted articles continue to get cited? Scientometrics, 2024 (online first). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05147-4 |
New Developments in Research Data Management - The Potential of AI.Azeroual, O., & Schöpfel, J. (2024).New Developments in Research Data Management - The Potential of AI. Encyclopedia of Libraries, Librarianship, and Information Science - Academia Press, 2024(2), 206-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95689-5.00253-4 |
How accurate are Scopus publication counts of researchers? A survey-bibliometric comparison for Germany.Fenton, A., Donner, P., Ambrasat, J., Fabian, G., & Heger, C. (2024).How accurate are Scopus publication counts of researchers? A survey-bibliometric comparison for Germany. In STI2024 (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI2024). Berlin: STI2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13991905 Abstract
The number of researchers' publications is a widely used proxy measure for scientific output, individual achievement, and performance. Despite well-known criticism from the bibliometric community, the use of bibliometric databases as a basis for measuring publication output is widespread. At the same time, there are established survey instruments that also measure the publication output per researcher. We use survey-bibliometric matching with Scopus publication records to compare the alternative publication counts. A Scopus author ID match could be found for 70 % of the respondent researchers. The number of publications per researcher varies greatly between these data sources. [...] |
Kontakt
