相关论文: Evaluation of Authors and Journals
Heretofore, the only way to evaluate an author has been frequency-based citation metrics that assume citations to be of a neutral sentiment. However, considering the sentiment behind citations aids in a better understanding of the…
Citation and publication profiles are gaining importance for the evaluation of top researchers when it comes to the appropriation of funding for excellence programs or career promotion judgments. Indicators like the Normalized Mean Citation…
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…
A scheme of evaluating an impact of a given scientific paper based on importance of papers quoting it is investigated. Introducing a weight of a given citation, dependent on the previous scientific achievements of the author of the citing…
Eigenfactor.org, a journal evaluation tool which uses an iterative algorithm to weight citations (similar to the PageRank algorithm used for Google) has been proposed as a more valid method for calculating the impact of journals. The…
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…
Evaluating the performance of researchers and measuring the impact of papers written by scientists is the main objective of citation analysis. Various indices and metrics have been proposed for this. In this paper, we propose a new citation…
Evaluating and comparing the academic performance of a journal, a researcher or a single paper has long remained a critical, necessary but also controversial issue. Most of existing metrics invalidate comparison across different fields of…
Usage of field-normalized citation scores is a bibliometric standard. Different methods for field-normalization are in use, but also the choice of field-classification system determines the resulting field-normalized citation scores. Using…
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…
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'…
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…
World University rankings have become well-established tools that students, university managers and policy makers read and use. Each ranking claims to have a unique methodology capable of measuring the 'quality' of universities. The purpose…
Citation recommendation systems have attracted much academic interest, resulting in many studies and implementations. These systems help authors automatically generate proper citations by suggesting relevant references based on the text…
Citation analysis does not generally take the quality of citations into account: all citations are weighted equally irrespective of source. However, a scholar may be highly cited but not highly regarded: popularity and prestige are not…
Evaluation of journals for quality is one of the dominant themes of bibliometrics since journals are the primary venue of vetting and distribution of scholarship. There are many criticisms of quantifying journal impact with bibliometrics…
Citation metrics are becoming pervasive in the quantitative evaluation of scholars, journals and institutions. More then ever before, hiring, promotion, and funding decisions rely on a variety of impact metrics that cannot disentangle…
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)…
One way of evaluating individual scientists is the determination of the number of highly cited publications, where the threshold is given by a large reference set. It is shown that this indicator behaves in a counterintuitive way, leading…
Evaluative bibliometrics compares the citation impact of researchers, research groups and institutions with each other across time scales and disciplines. Both factors - discipline and period - have an influence on the citation count which…