Related papers: Model-based evaluation of scientific impact indica…
Through academic publications, the authors of these publications form a social network. Instead of sharing casual thoughts and photos (as in Facebook), authors pick co-authors and reference papers written by other authors. Thanks to various…
The aim of this paper is to review the features, benefits and limitations of the new scientific evaluation products derived from Google Scholar; Google Scholar Metrics and Google Scholar Citations, as well as the h-index which is the…
In this work we propose a metric to assess academic productivity based on publication outputs. We are interested in knowing how well a research group in an area of knowledge is doing relatively to a pre-selected set of reference groups,…
The scientific community increasingly relies on open data sharing, yet existing metrics inadequately capture the true impact of datasets as research outputs. Traditional measures, such as the h-index, focus on publications and citations but…
Science progresses by building upon previous discoveries. It is commonly believed that the impact of scientific papers, as measured by citations, is positively correlated with the impact of past discoveries built upon. However, analyzing…
Foundation models are increasingly used in scientific research, but evaluating AI-generated scientific work remains challenging. While expert reviews are costly, large language models (LLMs) as proxy reviewers have proven to be unreliable.…
Various research activities rely on citation-based impact indicators. However these indicators are usually globally computed, hindering their proper interpretation in applications like research assessment and knowledge discovery. In this…
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…
The study of citations in the scientific literature crosses the boundaries between the traditional branches of science and stands on its own as a most profitable research field dubbed the `science of science'. Although the understanding of…
A simple abstract model is developed as a parallel experimental basis for the aim of exploring the differences of journal impact factors, particularly between different disciplines. Our model endeavors to simulate the publication and…
Most Performance-based Research Funding Systems (PRFS) draw on peer review and bibliometric indicators, two different methodologies which are sometimes combined. A common argument against the use of indicators in such research evaluation…
Ranking groups of researchers is important in several contexts and can serve many purposes such as the fair distribution of grants based on the scientist's publication output, concession of research projects, classification of journal…
Indexes that account for good representations of an individual's productivity are theme of major importance for the evaluation and comparison among researchers. Recently, a new index was proposed combining productivity with impact such that…
Bibliometrics such as the number of papers and times cited are often used to compare researchers based on specific criteria. The criteria, however, are different in each research domain and are set by empirical laws. Moreover, there are…
An important issue in bibliometrics is the weighing of co-authorship in the production of scientific collaborations, which are becoming the standard modality of research activity in many disciplines. The problem is especially relevant in…
The number of citations is a widely used metric to evaluate the scientific credit of papers, scientists and journals. However, it does happen that a paper with fewer citations from prestigious scientists is of higher influence than papers…
Systematic evaluations of publicly funded research typically employ a combination of bibliometrics and peer review, but it is not known whether the bibliometric component introduces biases. This article compares three alternative mechanisms…
Most scientometricians reject the use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles and their authors. The well-known San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment also strongly objects against this way of using the…
The proliferation of surveys and review articles in academic journals has impacted citation metrics like impact factor and h-index, skewing evaluations of journal and researcher quality. This work investigates the implications of this…
National research impact indicators derived from citation counts are used by governments to help assess their national research performance and to identify the effect of funding or policy changes. Citation counts lag research by several…