Analysis of the cost factors on E-government software cost using fuzzy decision making system

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Xungang Gu ◽  
Gang Li ◽  
Shengli Cao ◽  
Yumeng Zhang ◽  
Ran Wang
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Cost Estimation ◽  
Estimation Method ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Fuzzy Decision Making ◽  
Digital Government ◽  
Software Cost ◽  
Cost Impact ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

The reasonable cost budget of the e-government scheme can effectively promote the construction of the digital government. To analyze the cost impact components of the e-government system and find out the impact factor model works in China, this paper reviews relevant literature on software cost impact factors and proposes the impact factors model based on COCOMO II. Besides, combined with the actual construction of digital government and specific cases, this paper analyzes the mechanism of each impact factor in detail. The model can be used to guide the cost estimation of e-government software in China, especially with artificial intelligence estimation method. An enhanced decision theory of theory based on fuzzy set has been adopted for analysis of cost factor on E-government software cost.

Research on Improved Staged Software Cost Estimation Method Based on COCOMO Model

2014 ◽  
Vol 989-994 ◽  
pp. 1501-1504
Author(s):  
Hai Yang
Keyword(s):  
Software Development ◽  
Cost Estimation ◽  
Software Maintenance ◽  
Estimation Method ◽  
Estimation Methods ◽  
Software Project ◽  
Software Cost Estimation ◽  
Software Cost ◽  
Cocomo Model ◽  
The Cost

The accuracy of software cost estimation is essential for software development management. By introducing and analyzing the estimation methods of software cost systematically, the paper discussed the necessary of considering the software maintenance stage and estimating the software cost by separating the procedure of software development into several small stages. Then a staged software cost estimation method based on COCOMO model was proposed. The use of the new software cost estimation method proposed by this paper not only contributes to the cost control of software project, but also effectively avoids the bias problem due to using by single cost estimation method so that the accuracy of cost estimation could be improved.

scholarly journals The Software Cost Estimation Method Based on Fuzzy Ontology

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 21-30
Author(s):  
Przemysław Plecka ◽  
Krzysztof Bzdyra
Keyword(s):  
Enterprise Resource Planning ◽  
Cost Estimation ◽  
Estimation Method ◽  
Resource Planning ◽  
Software Cost ◽  
Contract Negotiations ◽  
Sales Process ◽  
Implementation Costs ◽  
Margin Of Safety ◽  
The Cost

Abstract In the course of sales process of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems, it turns out that the standard system must be extended or changed (modified) according to specific customer’s requirements. Therefore, suppliers face the problem of determining the cost of additional works. Most methods of cost estimation bring satisfactory results only at the stage of pre-implementation analysis. However, suppliers need to know the estimated cost as early as at the stage of trade talks. During contract negotiations, they expect not only the information about the costs of works, but also about the risk of exceeding these costs or about the margin of safety. One method that gives more accurate results at the stage of trade talks is the method based on the ontology of implementation costs. This paper proposes modification of the method involving the use of fuzzy attributes, classes, instances and relations in the ontology. The result provides not only the information about the value of work, but also about the minimum and maximum expected cost, and the most likely range of costs. This solution allows suppliers to effectively negotiate the contract and increase the chances of successful completion of the project.

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Metin Orbay ◽  
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽  
Ruben Miranda
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Bibliometric Indicators ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Consistent Assessment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.

Keynote

2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-3
Author(s):  
Ingo Weber
Keyword(s):  
Cost Estimation ◽  
Estimation Method ◽  
Main Topic ◽  
System Throughput ◽  
Distributed Ledger ◽  
Smart Contract ◽  
Distributed Ledger Technology ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Application Developers

Blockchain is a novel distributed ledger technology. Through its features and smart contract capabilities, a wide range of application areas opened up for blockchain-based innovation [5]. In order to analyse how concrete blockchain systems as well as blockchain applications are used, data must be extracted from these systems. Due to various complexities inherent in blockchain, the question how to interpret such data is non-trivial. Such interpretation should often be shared among parties, e.g., if they collaborate via a blockchain. To this end, we devised an approach codify the interpretation of blockchain data, to extract data from blockchains accordingly, and to output it in suitable formats [1, 2]. This work will be the main topic of the keynote. In addition, application developers and users of blockchain applications may want to estimate the cost of using or operating a blockchain application. In the keynote, I will also discuss our cost estimation method [3, 4]. This method was designed for the Ethereum blockchain platform, where cost also relates to transaction complexity, and therefore also to system throughput.

scholarly journals Editorial from the Editor in Chief: Impact factors and open access publishing

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-468
Author(s):  
Dieter H.H. Hoffmann
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Ultrashort Pulses ◽  
Dense Matter ◽  
High Energy ◽  
Research Field ◽  
High Energy Density ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Particle Beams ◽  
The Impact

The primary goal of Laser and Particle Beams as part of the Cambridge University Press is the dissemination of knowledge in our research field. How effective we are in this respect is not easy to determine. But the impact factor published annually in June by Thomson ISI® 2005 Journal Citation Reports (JCR), gives at least an indication and a method to compare other journals in the field. In this respect, Laser and Particle Beams is a journal with a very high ranking in the field of applied physics, but it also compares very well to journals in other field of physics. The impact factor of a journal gives an account of how often an average paper in the journal is referred to, in a two year time span after publication. The current impact factor of 2.59 is based on an evaluation conducted in 2005 of Laser and Particle Beams publications of 2003 and 2004. During the evaluation period (2005), Laser and Particle Beams publications were cited about 1000 times. The topics that attracted most attention were Fast Ignition (Deutsch, 2004; Mulser & Schneider, 2004a; Hora, 2004; Mulser & Bauer, 2004b), Inertial Fusion Targets (Borisenko et al., 2003), and Ion and Electron Acceleration in laser plasma and Ultrashort Pulses (Shorokhov & Pukhov, 2004; Osman et al., 2004; Malka & Fritzler, 2004; Limpouch et al., 2004; Pegoraro et al., 2004). However, the editorial boards of Laser and Particle Beams strongly encourage authors to submit their results in High Energy Density Physics, the emerging field of Warm Dense Matter, Pulsed Power and Accelerator Physics and Technology.

scholarly journals Understanding citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuel Kulczycki ◽  
Marek Hołowiecki ◽  
Zehra Taskin ◽  
Franciszek Krawczyk
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Citation Indexes ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

One of the most fundamental issues in academia today is understanding the differences between legitimate and predatory publishing. While decision-makers and managers consider journals indexed in popular citation indexes such as Web of Science or Scopus as legitimate, they use two blacklists (Beall’s and Cabell’s), one of which has not been updated for a few years, to identify predatory journals. The main aim of our study is to reveal the contribution of the journals accepted as legitimate by the authorities to the visibility of blacklisted journals. For this purpose, 65 blacklisted journals in social sciences and 2,338 Web-of-Science-indexed journals that cited these blacklisted journals were examined in-depth in terms of index coverages, subject categories, impact factors and self-citation patterns. We have analysed 3,234 unique cited papers from blacklisted journals and 5,964 unique citing papers (6,750 citations of cited papers) from Web of Science journals. We found that 13% of the blacklisted papers were cited by WoS journals and 37% of the citations were from impact-factor journals. As a result, although the impact factor is used by decision-makers to determine the levels of the journals, it has been revealed that there is no significant relationship between the impact factor and the number of citations to blacklisted journals. On the other hand, country and author self-citation practices of the journals should be considered. All the findings of this study underline the importance of the second part of this study, which will examine the contents of citations to articles published in predatory journals because understanding the motivations of the authors who cited blacklisted journals is important to correctly understand the citation patterns between impact-factor and blacklisted journals.

scholarly journals Estimasi Biaya Perangkat Lunak Pada Aplikasi SIBIMA Universitas XYZ dengan Menggunakan Metode Function Point

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Annisa Azzar Sandhea ◽  
Sri Maulidiyah ◽  
Renny Dewi Sari
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Information System ◽  
Cost Estimation ◽  
Education Institution ◽  
Software Cost Estimation ◽  
Software Cost ◽  
Indirect Approach ◽  
Function Point ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Guidance Information

The growing development of computers triggers the amount of software in different amounts and uses. A system is said to be good when starting planning that can estimate the cost, time and amount of resources needed as a basis for planning a system. So that the estimated cost can be an element in an assessment. The research explains that the Academic Guidance Information System (SIBIMA) which is a system for carrying out student consultation activities with academic advisers at XYZ University. From the software cost estimation results at SIBIMA use Function Point which is a method of estimating software size using an indirect approach or indirect approach to estimate software size in Function Point units (FP), for Effort values on SIBIMA is 379,906 man / hour and it is known that the cost needed in developing SIBIMA is IDR 22,858,705 so that it can be used as a reference if the higher education institution wants to develop a software system

scholarly journals Uncertainty Measures for Economics Journal Impact Factors

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
David I Stern
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Standard Error ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Elite Group ◽  
Economics Journal ◽  
Uncertainty Measures ◽  
Economics Journals ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

Academic economists appear to be intensely interested in rankings of journals, institutions, and individuals. Yet there is little discussion of the uncertainty associated with these rankings. To illustrate the uncertainty associated with citations-based rankings, I compute the standard error of the impact factor for all economics journals with a five-year impact factor in the 2011 Journal Citations Report. I use these to derive confidence intervals for the impact factors as well as ranges of possible rank for a subset of thirty journals. I find that the impact factors of the top two journals are well defined and set these journals apart in a clearly defined group. An elite group of 9–11 mainstream journals can also be fairly reliably distinguished. The four bottom ranked journals are also fairly clearly set apart. For the remainder of the distribution, confidence intervals overlap and rankings are quite uncertain. (JEL A14)

Impact of Consensus Papers versus Randomized Trials in Critical Care Nephrology

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 708-712
Author(s):  
John A. Kellum
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Consensus Conference ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Consensus Conferences ◽  
The Impact

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Reports of consensus conferences are usually valued less than reports of clinical trials even when rigorous methodology is used. However, limited data are available comparing the impact of these 2 methods of shaping clinical practice. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> Compare the publication impact of consensus conferences and clinical trials. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Consensus publications from the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) from 2002 through 2017 were identified and classified by subject matter. Randomized trials were identified in the same publication year and subject in journals, starting with the highest impact factor. Both publication types were matched, and total citations were determined for each using Google Scholar. A secondary analysis compared total costs for each publication type. <b><i>Results and Conclusions:</i></b> Seventeen ADQI consensus conference reports and 17 randomized trials were identified. ADQI reports received a similar number of citations per paper (median, interquartile range) compared to randomized trials (132, 54–228; vs. 159, 60–340, <i>p</i> = ns). Similarly, 10 (58.8%) ADQI reports and 10 randomized trials were cited &#x3e;100 times. On average, ADQI reports appeared in journals with lower impact factors compared to clinical trials (5.4 ± 4.6 vs. 25.4 ± 27.1; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01). The median cost per citation (USD 2017) for ADQI reports was USD 606.01 compared to almost twice this figure, USD 1,182.59, for clinical trials on the same topics (<i>p</i> = 0.09). Despite being published in lower impact factor journals, consensus reports on topics in critical care nephrology, received similar citations to randomized controlled trials published the same year.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Impact Factors of the Most-Cited Cardiovascular Journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (12) ◽  
pp. 1718-1724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Opthof
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
European Heart Journal ◽  
The Other ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Additional Advantage ◽  
The Right ◽  
Number Of Classes ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Journal Impact

In this article, I show that the distribution of citations to papers published by the top 30 journals in the category Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems of the Web of Science is extremely skewed. This skewness is to the right, which means that there is a long tail of papers that are cited much more frequently than the other papers of the same journal. The consequence is that there is a large difference between the mean and the median of the citation of the papers published by the journals. I further found that there are no differences between the citation distributions of the top 4 journals European Heart Journal , Circulation , Journal of the American College of Cardiology , and Circulation Research . Despite the fact that the journal impact factor (IF) varied between 23.425 for Eur Heart J and 15.211 for Circ Res with the other 2 journals in between, the median citation of their articles plus reviews (IF Median) was 10 for all 4 journals. Given the fact that their citation distributions were similar, it is obvious that an indicator (IF Median) that reflects this similarity must be superior to the classical journal impact factor, which may indicate a nonexisting difference. It is underscored that the IF Median is substantially lower than the journal impact factor for all 30 journals under consideration in this article. Finally, the IF Median has the additional advantage that there is no artificial ranking of 128 journals in the category but rather an attribution of journals to a limited number of classes with comparable impact.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document