Related papers: Axiomatic Quantification of Co-authors' Relative C…
In peer review, reviewers are usually asked to provide scores for the papers. The scores are then used by Area Chairs or Program Chairs in various ways in the decision-making process. The scores are usually elicited in a quantized form to…
The Eigenfactor Metrics provide an alternative way of evaluating scholarly journals based on an iterative ranking procedure analogous to Google's PageRank algorithm. These metrics have recently been adopted by Thomson-Reuters and are listed…
The impact factor (IF) of scientific journals has acquired a major role in the evaluations of the output of scholars, departments and whole institutions. Typically papers appearing in journals with large values of the IF receive a high…
The rigorous evaluation of the novelty of a scientific paper is, even for human scientists, a challenging task. With the increasing interest in AI scientists and AI involvement in scientific idea generation and paper writing, it also…
Problems for evaluation and impact of published scientific works and their authors are discussed. The role of citations in this process is pointed out. Different bibliometric indicators are reviewed in this connection and ways for…
The use of outcome control modes of research evaluation exercises is ever more frequent. They are conceived as tools to stimulate increased levels of research productivity, and to guide choices in allocating components of government…
In the past, several works have investigated ways for combining quantitative and qualitative methods in research assessment exercises. In this work, we aim at introducing a methodology to explore whether citation-based metrics, calculated…
Scientific authorship norms vary dramatically across disciplines, from contribution-sensitive systems where first author is the greatest contributor and subsequent author order reflects relative input, to contribution-insensitive…
The ongoing discussion regarding the utilization of individual research performance for academic hiring, funding allocation, and resource distribution has prompted the need for improved metrics. While traditional measures such as total…
The starting point of this paper is a desktop research assessment model that does not take properly into account the complexities of research assessment, but rather bases itself on a series of highly simplifying, questionable assumptions…
This short paper introduces the u-index, a simple and objective metric to evaluate the impact and relevance of academic research output, as a possible alternative to widespread metrics such as the h-index or the i10-index. The proposed…
I propose the R-Index, defined as the difference between the sum of review responsibilities for a researcher's publications and the number of reviews they have completed, as a novel metric to effectively characterize a researcher's…
Researchers usually come up with new ideas only after thoroughly comprehending vast quantities of literature. The difficulty of this procedure is exacerbated by the fact that the number of academic publications is growing exponentially. In…
Quantifying the interdisciplinarity of a research is a relevant problem in the evaluative bibliometrics. The concept of interdisciplinarity is ambiguous and multidimensional. Thus, different measures of interdisciplinarity have been propose…
The two most used citation impact indicators in the assessment of scientific journals are, nowadays, the impact factor and the h-index. However, both indicators are not field normalized (vary heavily depending on the scientific category)…
Collaboration among scholars has emerged as a significant characteristic of contemporary science. As a result, the number of authors listed in publications continues to rise steadily. Unfortunately, determining the authors to be included in…
In this paper we are trying to determine a scheme for the fair allocation of points to the contributors of the collaborative community. The major problem of fair allocation of points among the contributors is that we have to analyze the…
A quantitative modification to keep the number of published papers invariant under multiple authorship is suggested. In those cases, fractional allocations are attributed to each co-author with a summation equal to one. These allocations…
Researchers are often evaluated by citation-based metrics. Such metrics can inform hiring, promotion, and funding decisions. Concerns have been expressed that popular citation-based metrics incentivize researchers to maximize the production…
I propose the index $\hbar$ ("hbar"), defined as the number of papers of an individual that have citation count larger than or equal to the $\hbar$ of all coauthors of each paper, as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a…