Re-ranking of High-Impact AI Journals Based on H-Index

2011 ◽  
pp. 191-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
High Impact ◽  
H Index

scholarly journals Library Supported Open Access Funds: Criteria, Impact, and Viability

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 21-37
Author(s):  
Amanda B. Click ◽  
Rachel Borchardt
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
High Impact ◽  
H Index ◽  
Publication Data ◽  
Scholarly Publications ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Article Impact

Abstract Objective – This study analyzes scholarly publications supported by library open access funds, including author demographics, journal trends, and article impact. It also identifies and summarizes open access fund criteria and viability. The goal is to better understand the sustainability of open access funds, as well as identify potential best practices for institutions with open access funds. Methods – Publication data was solicited from universities with open access (OA) funds, and supplemented with publication and author metrics, including Journal Impact Factor, Altmetric Attention Score, and author h-index. Additionally, data was collected from OA fund websites, including fund criteria and guidelines. Results – Library OA funds tend to support faculty in science and medical fields. Impact varied widely, especially between disciplines, but a limited measurement indicated an overall smaller relative impact of publications funded by library OA funds. Many open access funds operate using similar criteria related to author and publication eligibility, which seem to be largely successful at avoiding the funding of articles published in predatory journals. Conclusions – Libraries have successfully funded many publications using criteria that could constitute best practices in this area. However, institutions with OA funds may need to identify opportunities to increase support for high-impact publications, as well as consider the financial stability of these funds. Alternative models for OA support are discussed in the context of an ever-changing open access landscape.

scholarly journals Prediction of junior faculty success in biomedical research: comparison of metrics and effects of mentoring programs

PeerJ ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. e1262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher S. von Bartheld ◽  
Ramona Houmanfar ◽  
Amber Candido
Keyword(s):  
Faculty Development ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Mentoring Programs ◽  
High Impact Journal ◽  
H Index ◽  
Future Success ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
The University

Measuring and predicting the success of junior faculty is of considerable interest to faculty, academic institutions, funding agencies and faculty development and mentoring programs. Various metrics have been proposed to evaluate and predict research success and impact, such as the h-index, and modifications of this index, but they have not been evaluated and validated side-by-side in a rigorous empirical study. Our study provides a retrospective analysis of how well bibliographic metrics and formulas (numbers of total, first- and co-authored papers in the PubMed database, numbers of papers in high-impact journals) would have predicted the success of biomedical investigators (n= 40) affiliated with the University of Nevada, Reno, prior to, and after completion of significant mentoring and research support (through funded Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, COBREs), or lack thereof (unfunded COBREs), in 2000–2014. The h-index and similar indices had little prognostic value. Publishing as mid- or even first author in only one high-impact journal was poorly correlated with future success. Remarkably, junior investigators with >6 first-author papers within 10 years were significantly (p< 0.0001) more likely (93%) to succeed than those with ≤6 first-author papers (4%), regardless of the journal’s impact factor. The benefit of COBRE-support increased the success rate of junior faculty approximately 3-fold, from 15% to 47%. Our work defines a previously neglected set of metrics that predicted the success of junior faculty with high fidelity—thus defining the pool of faculty that will benefit the most from faculty development programs such as COBREs.

Yoga Research Output in India: A Scientometric Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-90
Author(s):  
A. Poornima ◽  
M. Surulinathi
Keyword(s):  
Core Collection ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Output ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Online Database ◽  
H Index ◽  
Thomson Scientific ◽  
Bibliographic Data ◽  
Scientometric Study ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Methods

This article presents the research output of Yoga in India using different Scientometric approach both quantitative and qualitative methods. Bibliographic data for the study has been collected from the Web of Science Core Collection online database of Thomson Scientific, USA. The strings ‘Yoga and India’ in the topic and address field are used for retrieving data. Researcher have published 525 publications with 6683 Global Citations Scores (H-Index: 45) were selected and 525 publications which were used for further data analysis. Prominent Authors were identified by name, subject domain and able to place their papers in high impact journals. Moreover it has identified Countries wise collaboration of the research. 8 papers are received more than 100 citations. India has collaborated with 32 countries.

scholarly journals Positive bias for European men in peer reviewed applications for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 2145
Author(s):  
Sarah Holst ◽  
Sara Hägg
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gender Inequality ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Fisher Exact Test ◽  
Faculty Position ◽  
H Index ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Scientific Competence

Background: Sweden is viewed as an egalitarian country, still most of the professors are Swedish and only 25% are women. Research competence is evaluated using peer review, which is regarded as an objective measure in the meritocracy system. Here we update the investigation by Wold & Wennerås (1997) on women researcher’s success rate for obtaining a faculty position, by examining factors (gender, nationality, productivity, etc.) in applications for an Assistant Professorship in 2014 at Karolinska Institutet. Methods: Fifty-six applications, 26 Swedish and 21 women applicants, were scored both on merits and projects by six external reviewers. Additional variables, including grants and academic age, calculated as the number of years since PhD excluding parental or sick leave, were gathered. Productivity was assessed by calculating a composite bibliometric score based on six factors (citations, publications, first/last authorships, H-index, high impact publication). Results: Overall, academic age was negatively correlated with scores on merits, as assessed by peer review, although not reaching statistical significance. In men, associations between scores on merits and productivity (P-value=0.0004), as well as having received grants (P-value=0.009) were seen. No associations were found for women. Moreover, applicants with a background from the Middle East were un-proportionally found in the lowest quartile (Fisher exact test P-value=0.007). Conclusions: In summary, the gender inequality shown in peer review processes in Sweden 20 years ago still exists. Furthermore, a bias for ethnicity was found. In order to keep the best scientific competence in academia, more efforts are needed to avoid selection bias in assessments to enable equal evaluations of all researchers.

scholarly journals Positive bias for European men in peer reviewed applications for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 2145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Holst ◽  
Sara Hägg
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gender Inequality ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Fisher Exact Test ◽  
Faculty Position ◽  
H Index ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Scientific Competence

Background: Sweden is viewed as an egalitarian country, still most of the professors are Swedish and only 25% are women. Research competence is evaluated using peer review, which is regarded as an objective measure in the meritocracy system. Here we update the investigation by Wold & Wennerås (1997) on women researcher’s success rate for obtaining a faculty position, by examining factors (gender, nationality, productivity, etc.) in applications for an Assistant Professorship in 2014 at Karolinska Institutet. Methods: Fifty-six applications, 26 Swedish and 21 women applicants, were scored both on merits and projects by six external reviewers. Additional variables, including grants and academic age, calculated as the number of years since PhD excluding parental or sick leave, were gathered. Productivity was assessed by calculating a composite bibliometric score based on six factors (citations, publications, first/last authorships, H-index, high impact publication). Results: Overall, academic age was negatively correlated with scores on merits, as assessed by peer review, although not reaching statistical significance. In men, associations between scores on merits and productivity (P-value=0.0004), as well as having received grants (P-value=0.009) were seen. No associations were found for women. Moreover, applicants with a background from the Middle East were un-proportionally found in the lowest quartile (Fisher exact test P-value=0.007). Conclusions: In summary, the gender inequality shown in peer review processes in Sweden 20 years ago still exists. Furthermore, a bias for ethnicity was found. In order to keep the best scientific competence in academia, more efforts are needed to avoid selection bias in assessments to enable equal evaluations of all researchers.

scholarly journals Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications in rheumatology journals from China and other top-ranking countries between 2007 and 2017

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e6825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Zhang ◽  
Xinzhe Feng ◽  
Chen Wang ◽  
Denghui Liu ◽  
Chongru He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Annual Number ◽  
H Index ◽  
Rheumatology Research ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk

Objectives Rheumatology-related diseases remain a significant burden worldwide. However, little is known about the comparative status of rheumatology research between Mainland China (MC) and the world’s leading countries. The aim of this study is to compare the quantity and quality of research output in the field of rheumatology that were written by researchers from MC, the USA, the UK, the Netherlands and France. Methods Between 2007 and 2017, all articles published in 30 rheumatology journals were identified via Science Citation Index Expanded database. The number of total and annual articles, article types (randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reviews, case reports, clinical trials and meta-analysis), impact factor (IF), citations, h-index and articles in the high-impact journals were collected for quantity and quality comparisons. The correlation of socioeconomic factors and annual publications was also analyzed. Results From 2007 to 2017, there were 53,439 articles published in rheumatology journals, of which researchers from the USA published 13,391 articles, followed by the UK, the Netherlands, France and MC with 6,179, 4,310, 4,066 and 2,898 articles, respectively. Publications from MC represented the ninth, but the number is growing rapidly. For total and average citations, MC still lags behind the other four countries in the study. Similar trends were observed in average IF, h-index and articles in the high-impact journals. In terms of article types, the USA occupies the dominant place, except for meta-analysis. The annual numbers of articles from MC and the USA were positively correlated with gross domestic product (p < 0.05). Conclusions The USA has played predominant role in rheumatology research for the last 11 years. The annual number of published articles from MC has increased notably from 2007 to 2017. Although MC has made progress in the number of published articles over the past decade, it still lags far behind the highly developed countries in most bibliometric indicators. Thus, the general quality of publications from MC needs further improvement.

H-index may influence more than methodological variables for publication in high impact psychiatry journals – A systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S382-S382
Author(s):  
L. Primo de Carvalho Alves ◽  
A.A. Rodrigues ◽  
F. Moreira Lima ◽  
N. Janovik ◽  
L. Sanguinetti Czepielewski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
High Impact ◽  
H Index ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Competing Interest

ObjectivesThe scientific community assumes that rigorous methodology research is more likely to be published in high impact psychiatry journals (HIJ). We aimed to test which methodological variables could predict publication in HIJ.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 2013, January 1st to 2015, June 15th. Inclusion criteria were studies that were RCTs whose at least one arm of the study should be fluoxetine regarding adult patients (> 18 years old) with MDD. We performed logistic regression regarding the number of participants, intention-to-treat analysis, blinding, multicenter study, sample losses, positive result, sponsorship of pharmacy's industry, and h-index of the last author. A HIJ was considered if journal impact factor was above the median or 3rd quartile of our sample.ResultsForty-two studies were considered for the final analysis. The results of the univariate logistic regression found no differences between HIJ and low impact psychiatry journals for all methodological variables, except the h-index of the last author. By considering HIJ when impact factor was above the mean, h-index had an odds ratio = 1.09 (1.01–1.17), P = 0.02; considering HIJ when impact factor was above the 3rd quartile, h-index had an odds ratio = 1.07 (1.01–1.14), P = 0.02.DiscussionOur results indicate that the author productivity may be a relevant predictor for publication in a HIJ in the psychiatry/psychology field. Our study proposes that journals focus on identifying what are the relevant criteria for publication approval in the peer-review process.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

scholarly journals Academic sell-out: How an obsession with metrics and rankings is damaging academia

2016 ◽  
pp. 161-172
Author(s):  
Thorsten Gruber
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Academic Impact ◽  
H Index ◽  
Journal Rankings ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Journal Impact

Increasingly, academics have to demonstrate that their research has academic impact. Universities normally use journal rankings and journal impact factors to assess the research impact of individual academics. More recently, citation counts for individual articles and the h-index have also been used to measure the academic impact of academics. There are, however, several serious problems with relying on journal rankings, journal impact factors and citation counts. For example, articles without any impact may be published in highly ranked journals or journals with high impact factor, whereas articles with high impact could be published in lower ranked journals or journals with low impact factor. Citation counts can also be easily gamed and manipulated and the h-index disadvantages early career academics. This paper discusses these and several other problems and suggests alternatives such as post-publication peer review and open-access journals.

Postmortem and in situ TEM methods to study the mechanism of failure in controlled-morphology high-impact polystrene resin

1996 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 178-179
Author(s):  
R. C. Cieslinski ◽  
M. T. Dineen ◽  
J. L. Hahnfeld
Keyword(s):  
Poisson Ratio ◽  
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene ◽  
High Impact ◽  
In Situ Tem ◽  
Styrene Copolymers ◽  
Controlled Morphology ◽  
Point Bend ◽  
Mechanism Of Failure ◽  
Impact Energies

Advanced Styrenic resins are being developed throughout the industry to bridge the properties gap between traditional HIPS (High Impact Polystyrene) and ABS (Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene copolymers) resins. These new resins have an unprecedented balance of high gloss and high impact energies. Dow Chemical's contribution to this area is based on a unique combination of rubber morphologies including labyrinth, onion skin, and core-shell rubber particles. This new resin, referred as a controlled morphology resin (CMR), was investigated to determine the toughening mechanism of this unique rubber morphology. This poster will summarize the initial studies of these resins using the double-notch four-point bend test of Su and Yee, tensile stage electron microscopy, and Poisson Ratio analysis of the fracture mechanism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document