Related papers: What are scientific leaders? The introduction of a…
Because of the variations in citation behavior across research fields, appropriate standardization must be applied as part of any bibliometric analysis of the productivity of individual scientists and research organizations. Such…
The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is, by far, the most discussed bibliometric indicator. Since its introduction over 40 years ago, it has had enormous effects on the scientific ecosystem: transforming the publishing industry, shaping hiring…
Bibliometrics plays an increasingly important role in research evaluation. However, no gold standard exists for a set of reliable and valid (field-normalized) impact indicators in research evaluation. This opinion paper recommends that…
Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used to evaluate the performance of scientists. However, traditional indicators do not much rely on the analysis of the processes intended to measure and the practical goals of the…
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,…
For several decades, a leading paradigm of how to quantitatively assess scientific research has been the analysis of the aggregated citation information in a set of scientific publications. Although the representation of this information as…
The SNIP (source normalized impact per paper) indicator is an indicator of the citation impact of scientific journals. The indicator, introduced by Henk Moed in 2010, is included in Elsevier's Scopus database. The SNIP indicator uses a…
The importance of a research article is routinely measured by counting how many times it has been cited. However, treating all citations with equal weight ignores the wide variety of functions that citations perform. We want to…
Classifying researchers according to the quality of their published work rather than the quantity is a curtail issue. We attempt to introduce a new formula of the percentage range to be used for evaluating qualitatively the researchers'…
Measurement is a complicated but very necessary task. Many indices have been created in an effort to define the quality of knowledge produced but they have attracted strong criticism, having become synonymous with individualism, competition…
We address the question how citation-based bibliometric indicators can best be normalized to ensure fair comparisons between publications from different scientific fields and different years. In a systematic large-scale empirical analysis,…
Normalised citation counts are routinely used to assess the average impact of research groups or nations. There is controversy over whether confidence intervals for them are theoretically valid or practically useful. In response, this…
I introduce a decomposition of the h-index, which is nowadays the leading criterion to assess the relevance of a scientist in his/her research field. According to the proposed decomposition, the h-index is the product of two indicators, the…
Bibliographic metrics are commonly utilized for evaluation purposes within academia, often in conjunction with other metrics. These metrics vary widely across fields and change with the seniority of the scholar; consequently, the only way…
The ongoing growth in the volume of scientific literature available today precludes researchers from efficiently discerning the relevant from irrelevant content. Researchers are constantly interested in impactful papers, authors and venues…
The h index is a widely recognized metric for assessing the research impact of scholars, defined as the maximum value h such that the scholar has published h papers each cited at least h times. While it has proven useful measuring…
Like it or not, attempts to evaluate and monitor the quality of academic research have become increasingly prevalent worldwide. Performance reviews range from at the level of individuals, through research groups and departments, to entire…
Currently the ranking of scientists is based on the $h$-index, which is widely perceived as an imprecise and simplistic though still useful metric. We find that the $h$-index actually favours modestly performing researchers and propose a…
Science is a fundamental human activity and we trust its results because it has several error-correcting mechanisms. Its is subject to experimental tests that are replicated by independent parts. Given the huge amount of information…
Are existing ways of measuring scientific quality reflecting disadvantages of not being part of giant collaborations? How could possible discrimination be avoided? We propose indices defined for each discipline (subfield) and which count…