A review on h-index and its alternative indices

2021 ◽  
pp. 016555152110144
Author(s):  
Anand Bihari ◽  
Sudhakar Tripathi ◽  
Akshay Deepak
Keyword(s):  
Citation Count ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
H Index ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Total Publication ◽  
Index 2 ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Excess Citation ◽  
Number Of Authors

In recent years, several scientometrics and bibliometrics indicators were proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of individuals, institutions, colleges, universities and research teams. The h-index gives a breakthrough in the research community for assessing the scientific impact of an individual. It got a lot of attention due to its simplicity, and several other indicators were proposed to extend the properties of the h-index and to overcome its shortcomings. In this literature review, we have discussed the advantages and limitations of almost all scientometrics and bibliometrics indicators, which have been categorised into seven categories based on their properties: (1) complement of h-index, (2) based on total number of authors, (3) based on publication age, (4) combination of two indices, (5) based on excess citation count, (6) based on total publication count and (7) based on other variants. The primary objective of this article is to study all those indicators which have been proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of an individual researcher or a group of researchers.

scholarly journals Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis of “BACA: Jurnal Dokumentasi dan Informasi” Published During 2015-2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-160
Author(s):  
Dwi Ridho Aulianto ◽  
◽  
Wahid Nashihuddin
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
H Index ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Index 2 ◽  
Bibliometric Research ◽  
Number Of Authors

This study aims to know deeply about BACA: Documentation and Information Journal published during 2015-2019. The aspects of the study are the distribution of articles, number of pages, authorship patterns, citation numbers, and form of visualization. This bibliometric research obtained data in http://jurnalbaca.pdii.lipi.go.id, which was then processed and analyzed using Ms. Excel, Publish or Perish (PoP) and VOSviewer application. The study showed that this journal has a frequency of publication 2 times a year (June and December) and has published 71 articles during 2015-2019, with 30 single authors (42.25%) and 41 collaborative authors (57.75). The number of writers who contributed during the period was 146 people both single and collaborative, and in 2019 there were 20 article titles with the largest number of authors 46 people (31.51%). Distribution of articles based on publication numbers during the period, namely issue 1 (June) published as many as 34 articles (47.89%) and issue 2 (December) published as many as 37 articles (52.11%) with a total of 975 pages with an average of 11-15 pages. This journal has 30 citations, an annual citation 6.00, a written citation 0.42, h-index 2, g-index 2, hI, norm 2, and hla 0.40. The strength of the network between the authors and the frequency of collaboration can be seen in VosViewer’s visualization.

Building Research Teams

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Peach
Keyword(s):  
Common Goal ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Building Research ◽  
The Past ◽  
Collective Activity ◽  
Research Administrators ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Century Science

This chapter discusses the process of building research teams. Increasingly over the past three-quarters of a century, science has become a collective activity, with teams of tens, hundreds or even thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians working together on a common goal. Consequently, almost all research involves building, motivating and maintaining a research team. Even a theoretical group is likely to have one or two postdocs, graduate students and visitors, but research teams will, in addition, have engineers and technicians, as well as, possibly, research administrators. The chapter also addresses the importance of creating and maintaining a good team and team spirit, as large projects are assembled from a large number of small teams working on common goals, usually in a loose federated structure with some overall coordination and leadership.

scholarly journals Assessing the Scientific Impact of Individual Scholars With Multi-Scale H-Index

IEEE Access ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 226942-226951
Author(s):  
Feng Ma ◽  
Yuan Huang
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Impact ◽  
H Index ◽  
Multi Scale

Phase I study of mesothelin-targeted immunotoxin LMB-100 in combination with tofacitinib in patients with advanced pancreatobiliary cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3051-3051
Author(s):  
Nebojsa Skorupan ◽  
Mehwish Iqra Ahmad ◽  
Guillaume Joe Pegna ◽  
Cody J. Peer ◽  
Jane B. Trepel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Dose Level ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Pseudomonas Exotoxin A ◽  
Recombinant Immunotoxin ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Expansion Cohort ◽  
Almost All

3051 Background: LMB-100 recombinant immunotoxin consists of a mesothelin-binding Fab for targeting a modified Pseudomonas exotoxin A payload to tumors. Previous clinical trials demonstrated that almost all patients formed anti-drug-antibodies (ADAs) to LMB-100 that made administration beyond cycle 2 ineffective. Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor that prevented formation of ADAs against a closely related immunotoxin in pre-clinical studies. The primary objective of the dose escalation cohort was assessment of safety and tolerability of LMB-100 given with tofacitinib to patients with mesothelin-expressing solid tumors. The primary objective of the expansion cohort was to determine whether co-administration of tofacitinib delays formation of neutralizing LMB-100 ADAs. Methods: Patients (n = 13) with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and other mesothelin-expressing solid tumors (n = 3; cholangiocarcinoma, appendix, cystadenocarcinoma) were treated for up to 3 cycles with LMB-100 as a 30-minute infusion on days 4, 6, and 8 at two dose levels (100 and 140 mcg/kg) and co-treated with oral tofacitinib for the first 10 days of the cycle (10 mg BID). Results: Dose level 1 of LMB-100 was started at 100 mcg/kg one dose level below the single agent MTD. Dose escalation to 140 mcg/kg (dose level 2) resulted in DLTs in 2 of the 3 patients treated: grade 3 cardiac toxicity and grade 4 hyponatremia, both attributed to capillary leak syndrome. Ultimately, 7 patients were treated at dose level 1 without DLTs and 100 mcg/kg was chosen as the LMB-100 dose for the expansion cohort. The last of 6 patients treated in the expansion cohort developed grade 4 pericardial effusion leading to early closure of the study for toxicity. No objective responses were seen. Of the 8 patients who received two cycles of treatment at MTD, 4 met prespecified criteria for ADA prevention, and 2 patients who went on to receive cycle 3 had detectable LMB-100 plasma drug levels after administration. Conclusions: LMB-100 was unable to be co-administered safely with tofacitinib. ADA formation was prevented in 2 patients through 3 cycles, a rare occurrence. Clinical trial information: NCT04034238.

Differentiation between Schizoid and Avoidant Personalities: An Empirical Test*

1989 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 785-790 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Overholser
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Empirical Test ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Anxiety Depression ◽  
Univariate Analyses ◽  
Number Of Authors

A number of authors have questioned the rationale for subdividing the DSM-II schizoid diagnosis into three separate personality disorders in DSM-III, the schizoid, avoidant, and schizotypal. The present study was designed to explore differences between psychiatric patients with schizoid and avoidant personalities as compared to psychiatric controls with no personality disorder. Differences were examined on demographic data, self-report measures, and clinical information. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) revealed a significant overall effect for groups across MMPI subscales. However, subsequent univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVA's) revealed that almost all differences were between the two personality disorder groups as compared to the psychiatric controls. Contrary to expectations, schizoid and avoidant personalities were found to display equivalent levels of anxiety, depression, and psychotic tendencies as compared to psychiatric control patients. No meaningful distinctions were found between the avoidant and the schizoid personalities. Results are discussed in terms of problems with the assessment methods and the diagnostic criteria.

scholarly journals Short term momentum profits and their source: a business indicators’ approach

2013 ◽  
Vol 59 (No. 12) ◽  
pp. 563-577
Author(s):  
A. Ejaz ◽  
P. Polak
Keyword(s):  
Stock Markets ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Momentum Effect ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Momentum Profits ◽  
The Future ◽  
Secondary Objective ◽  
Number Of Authors ◽  
Starting A Business

The main objective of the paper is to seek the source that can explain the momentum profits because the source of momentum profits has been disputed. The secondary objective of the paper is to affirm the findings of the author about the presence of the short term momentum effect and to reaffirm the notion that CAPM cannot explain the momentum profits supported by a large number of authors. For the primary objective, a set of variables has been chosen, that fall under the category of “Business Indicators”, to explain the momentum profits. It is found that a variable “Starting a Business” could explain the source of the momentum profits whereas other variables may have a negligible or no influence over the momentum profits. It is also reaffirmed that a short term momentum effect has been found in 14 stock markets and the CAPM could not explain the momentum profits. This study is not conclusive due to the limitation of data but it does give a source of the momentum profits and it sheds light on the future research about the sources that can explain momentum profits in a great detail.

scholarly journals Citation Counts as a Measure for Scientific Impact

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jari Burgers
Keyword(s):  
Rank Order ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Kendall’S Tau ◽  
Kendall's Tau ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Total Citation ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Lower Correlation ◽  
Ranked List

This thesis presents a look into citation counts as a measure for scientific impact which in turn is used to determine the replication value (RV). first, by comparing citation sources (WoS, Crossref, Scopus and Scite) from which citation counts can be retrieved. Secondly, by removing contradicting citations from the citation count, and comparing this new citation count without contradicting citations with the original total citation count. In both cases, based on the citation count, rank order lists are formed which are compared with the use of two tests. First, Kendall’s tau is calculated to see how well the compared pairs of lists correlate. Second, the rank biased overlap (RBO) is calculated to see how well pairs of lists overlap. The RBO is different than Kendall’s tau because it is able to give more weight to citation counts at the top of the list emphasizing the importance of high ranked articles as opposed to low ranked articles. Both measures indicate a significant correlation and overlap between ranked lists originating from Scopus and Crossref and WoS, and a lower correlation and overlap between Scite and all other sources. Based on the difference between Scite and all other sources, Scite is not yet the best choice as a citation source for determining scientific impact. Both measures also indicate a strong correlation and overlap between the ranked list formed from the total citation counts and the ranked list formed from the total citation count minus the contradicting citations. Based on this high correlation and overlap, taking out contradicting citations is not needed when determining scientific impact.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document