Related papers: Bibliometrics for collaboration works
Collaborative work and co-authorship are fundamental to the advancement of modern science. However, it is not clear how collaboration should be measured in achievement-based metrics. Co-author weighted credit introduces distortions into the…
Rather than "measuring" a scientist impact through the number of citations which his/her published work can have generated, isn't it more appropriate to consider his/her value through his/her scientific network performance illustrated by…
An accurate and fair assessment of the efficiency and impact of scientific work is, despite a lot of recent research effort, still an open problem. The measurement of quality and success of individual scientists and research groups can be…
A variety of bibliometric measures have been proposed to quantify the impact of researchers and their work. The h-index is a notable and widely-used example which aims to improve over simple metrics such as raw counts of papers or…
We investigate the problem of counting co-authorhip in order to quantify the impact and relevance of scientific research output through normalized \textit{h-index} and \textit{g-index}. We use the papers whose authors belong to a subset of…
Collaborations are an integral part of scientific research and publishing. In the past, access to large-scale corpora has limited the ways in which questions about collaborations could be investigated. However, with improvements in…
A fair assignment of credit for multi-authored publications is a long-standing issue in scientometrics. In the calculation of the $h$-index, for instance, all co-authors receive equal credit for a given publication, independent of a given…
Citation numbers and other quantities derived from bibliographic databases are becoming standard tools for the assessment of productivity and impact of research activities. Though widely used, still their statistical properties have not…
We propose measures of the impact of research that improve on existing ones such as counting of number of papers, citations and $h$-index. Since different papers and different fields have largely different average number of co-authors and…
A researcher collaborating with many groups will normally have more papers (and thus higher citations and $h$-index) than a researcher spending all his/her time working alone or in a small group. While analyzing an author's research merit,…
Although bibliometrics has been a separate research field for many years, there is still no uniformity in the way bibliometric analyses are applied to individual researchers. Therefore, this study aims to set up proposals how to evaluate…
The rising trend of coauthored academic works obscures the credit assignment that is the basis for decisions of funding and career advancements. In this paper, a simple model based on the assumption of an unvarying "author ability" is…
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…
Is more always better? We address this question in the context of bibliometric indices that aim to assess the scientific impact of individual researchers by counting their number of highly cited publications. We propose a simple model in…
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'…
In a recent paper, Hirsch (2018) proposes to attribute the credit for a co-authored paper to the {\alpha}-author--the author with the highest h-index--regardless of his or her actual contribution, effectively reducing the role of the other…
Author-level citation metrics provide a practical, interpretable, and scalable signal of scholarly influence in a complex research ecosystem. It has been widely used as a proxy in hiring decisions. However, the past five years have seen the…
The impact of individual scientists is commonly quantified using citation-based measures. The most common such measure is the h-index. A scientist's h-index affects hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, and thus shapes the progress of…
In order to advance academic research, it is important to assess and evaluate the academic influence of researchers and the findings they produce. Citation metrics are universally used methods to evaluate researchers. Amongst the several…
Co-authorship in publications within a discipline uncovers interesting properties of the analysed field. We represent collaboration in academic papers of computer science in terms of differently grained networks, including those…