Comparative analysis of domestic psychologists and ergonomists’ publication activity using citation indices

Ergodesign ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (4) ◽  
pp. 235-249
Author(s):  
Valeriy Spasennikov
Keyword(s):  
Hirsch Index ◽  
H Index ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Relevant Field ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
American Physicist ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Relevance Index ◽  
Official Recognition

The advantages and disadvantages of indices for assessing scientists’ activities using the scientometric databases Web of Science (USA), Scopus (EU) and RSCI (RF) are considered. It is proposed to use such indicators as the citation index and the publication relevance index to objectify the data in addition to the known indicators, namely the number of publications, the number of links, the average number of citations per publication, the Hirsch index. It is shown that the main disadvantage of the h-index proposed by the American physicist Jorge Hirsch for assessing ergonomists’ scientific activities is not taking into account the relevance of breakthrough scientific results and inventions. The rating of 25 leading domestic psychologists and 25 domestic ergonomists is given, which is obtained from the RSCI database and it includes such indicators as the number of publications, the total number of citations, the average number of citations, the average number of citations per publication, and the Hirsch index. It is concluded that using relevance and citation indices is, to a certain extent, evidence of this scholar’ official recognition by the scientific community and the formal confirmation of his authority. It is shown that applying scientometric citation indices and their correct use in assessing scientists’ activities should be carried out by the qualified experts in the relevant field of knowledge.

Bibliometric Analysis of Current Drug Metabolism: The Twentieth Anniversary from 2000-2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 685-703
Author(s):  
Waseem Hassan ◽  
Jean Paul Kamdem ◽  
Mohammad Amjad Kamal ◽  
Joao Batista Teixeira da Rocha
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Drug Metabolism ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Continuous Growth ◽  
H Index ◽  
Current Drug ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Twentieth Anniversary ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations

Background: Scopus is regularly covering Current Drug Metabolism from 2000 onwards. Objective: The major objective is to perform the 1st bibliometric analysis of Current Drug Metabolism (CDM). Methods: The data was retrieved from Scopus in April-May 2020 for detail analysis. Results: The total number of publications was found to be 1551, with 955 reviews (61.57%) and 466 articles (30.05%). From 2000 onwards, we calculated the relative growth rate and doubling time. Based on the number of publications, total 4418 authors, 3235 institutions and 83 countries were directly involved in all publications. M.A. Kamal is the highly productive scientist with fifty-three (53 or 3.73%) publications, King Abdulaziz University is the top university with the highest number of publications (58 or 4.13%) and the USA is the top-ranked country with 365 publications (25.96%). We also provided the h-index, total citations (TC), h-index without self-citations (WSC) and total WSC of the top ten authors, universities and countries. In citations analysis, Prof. Zhou S.F. was the top scientist with the highest (1594) number of citations. In institutional category Department of Drug Metabolism, Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, United States, is the top ranked institutes with 654 total citations. While, United States is the top-ranked country with 18409 total citations. In co-words analysis, 3387, 30564 and 17333 terms in titles of the manuscripts, abstracts and keywords were recorded, respectively. This indicated that CDM principally focused on understanding drug development ranging from its efficacy to delivery, metabolism, distribution, safety and mechanism of actions. Similarly, various specific drugs were thoroughly discussed in publications. Various enzymatic, genetics, proteins and cancer-related aspects were also described. For data presentations, we used VOSviewer graphical maps. Conclusion: The data confirm that CDM showed continuous growth in the number of publications and citations. However significant measures are needed to make overall progress and improve the rankings in relevant categories.

scholarly journals Game of Tenure: the role of “hidden” citations on researchers’ ranking in Ecology

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Benítez-López ◽  
Luca Santini
Keyword(s):  
Original Data ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Ecological Data ◽  
H Index ◽  
Track Record ◽  
Model Parameterization ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations

AimField ecologists and macroecologists often compete for the same grants and academic positions, with the former producing original data that the latter generally use for model parameterization. Original data are usually cited only in the supplementary materials thereby not counting formally as citations, creating an unfair system where field ecologists are routinely under-acknowledged and possibly disadvantaged in the race for funding and positions. Here we explore how the performance of authors contributing ecological data would change if all the citations to their work would be accounted for by bibliometric indicators.LocationWorldwideTime period2008-2017Major taxa studiedHomo sapiens academiaeMethods We collected the track record of >2300 authors from Google Scholar and citation data from 600 papers published in 40 ecology journals, including field-based, conservation, general ecology and macroecology studies. Then we parameterize a simulation that mimics the current publishing system for ecologists and assessed author rankings based on number of citations, H-Index, Impact Factor and number of publications under a scenario where supplementary citations count.Results We found weak evidence for field ecologists being lower ranked than macroecologists or general ecologists, with publication rate being the main predictor of author performance. Accounting for supplementary citations in bibliometrics did not substantially change the current ranking dynamics.Main conclusionsCurrent ranking dynamics are largely unaffected by supplementary citations as they are 10 times less than the number of main text citations. This is exacerbated by the common practice of citing datasets assembled by previous papers instead than the original articles. Nonetheless, researcher performance evaluations should include criteria that better capture authors’ contribution of new, publicly available, data. This could encourage field ecologists to collect and store new data in a systematic manner, thereby mitigating the data patchiness and bias in macroecology studies, and further accelerating the advancement of Ecology.

scholarly journals The Association Between Professional Accounts on Social Networks Twitter and ResearchGate and the Number of Scientific Publications and Citations Among Anesthesia Researchers: Observational Study (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Clavier ◽  
Emilie Occhiali ◽  
Zoé Demailly ◽  
Vincent Compère ◽  
Benoit Veber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
H Index ◽  
The Social ◽  
Twitter Account ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Science Citation Index Expanded

BACKGROUND Social networks are now essential tools for promoting research and researchers. However, there is no study investigating the link between presence or not on professional social networks and scientific publication or citation for a given researcher. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to study the link between professional presence on social networks and scientific publications/citations among anesthesia researchers. METHODS We included all the French full professors and associate professors of anesthesia. We analyzed their presence on the social networks Twitter (professional account with ≥1 tweet over the 6 previous months) and ResearchGate. We extracted their bibliometric parameters for the 2016-2020 period via the Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics) database in the Science Citation Index-Expanded index. RESULTS A total of 162 researchers were analyzed; 42 (25.9%) had an active Twitter account and 110 (67.9%) a ResearchGate account. There was no difference between associate professors and full professors regarding active presence on Twitter (8/23 [35%] vs. 34/139 [24.5%], respectively; <i>P</i>=.31) or ResearchGate (15/23 [65%] vs. 95/139 [68.3%], respectively; <i>P</i>=.81). Researchers with an active Twitter account (median [IQR]) had more scientific publications (45 [28-61] vs. 26 [12-41]; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), a higher h-index (12 [8-16] vs. 8 [5-11]; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), a higher number of citations per publication (12.54 [9.65-21.8] vs. 10.63 [5.67-16.10]; <i>P</i>=.01), and a higher number of citations (563 [321-896] vs. 263 [105-484]; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). Researchers with a ResearchGate account (median [IQR]) had more scientific publications (33 [17-47] vs. 26 [9-43]; <i>P</i>=.03) and a higher h-index (9 [6-13] vs. 8 [3-11]; <i>P</i>=.03). There was no difference between researchers with a ResearchGate account and those without it concerning the number of citations per publication and overall number of citations. In multivariate analysis including sex, academic status, and presence on social networks, the presence on Twitter was associated with the number of publications (β=20.2; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), the number of citations (β=494.5; <i>P</i>&lt;.001), and the h-index (β=4.5; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). CONCLUSIONS Among French anesthesia researchers, an active presence on Twitter is associated with higher scientific publication and citations.

Academic impact and rankings of American and Canadian neurosurgical departments as assessed using the h index

2010 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco A. Ponce ◽  
Andres M. Lozano
Keyword(s):  
Web Of Science ◽  
Neurosurgical Department ◽  
Academic Impact ◽  
H Index ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
The Past ◽  
Size Number ◽  
The Us ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations

Object The authors undertook a study to estimate the relative academic impact of neurosurgical departments in Canada and the US using the h index, a measure of the number of citations received by a collection of work. Methods The study included 99 departments of neurosurgery with residency programs participating in the US National Residency Matching Program, and the 14 analogous Canadian programs. Three types of h indices were determined—one reflecting the cumulative work attributed to a neurosurgical department, h(c); one restricted to the cumulative work published over the past 10 years, h(10); and one limited to work published in 2 major North American neurosurgical journals, hNS(10). For an article to be included, attribution to a neurosurgical department had to appear in the address field in the database Thomson's ISI Web of Science. The three h indices were compared with each other, and their relation to other measures such as size of the department, degrees held by the faculty, and research funding was examined. Results Significant correlations were found between the citation indices and faculty size, number of publications and the types of degrees held by the faculty, and funding by the US NIH. Three types of authorship were identified: neurosurgeon, nonclinician researcher, and nonneurosurgeon clinical affiliate. The degree to which the latter 2 nonneurosurgeon categories contributed to the departmental h index varied among departments and can confound interdepartmental comparison. Limiting articles to those published in neurosurgical journals appeared to correct for the influence of nonneurosurgeons in departmental impact and reflect neurosurgeon-driven scholarship. Conclusions The h index may be useful in evaluating output across neurosurgery departments.

scholarly journals The data-index: an author-level metric that values impactful data and incentivises data sharing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amelia S C Hood ◽  
William J Sutherland
Keyword(s):  
Publication Output ◽  
Value System ◽  
H Index ◽  
Scientific Success ◽  
Access Code ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Alternative Metrics

AbstractAuthor-level metrics are a widely used measure of scientific success. The h-index, and its variants, measure publication output (number of publications) and impact (number of citations), and these are often used to allocate funding or jobs. Here we argue that the emphasis on publication output and impact hinders progress in the fields of ecology and evolution as it disincentivises two fundamental practices: generating long-term datasets and sharing data. We describe a new author-level metric, the data-index, which values dataset output and impact and promotes generating and sharing data as a result. It is designed to complement other metrics of scientific success, as scientific contributions are diverse and our value system should reflect that. Future work should focus on designing alternative metrics that value our wider merits, such as communicating our research, informing policy, mentoring other scientists, and providing open-access code and tools.

scholarly journals HY-index: A new science-meter index

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 23-28
Author(s):  
Hamdy M. Youssef ◽  
◽  
Alaa A. El-Bary ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Method ◽  
H Index ◽  
New Science ◽  
Study Case ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations

In academic societies, it is essential to measure the efficiency of the researchers, scientists, institutions, departments, and universities by using a standard method that depends on their publications and citations. This work is devoted to constructing a new index that can measure the quality of the publications of any source mentioned above. The main goal of this new index is to fix the shortcoming of the current indices, such as the well-known h-index. Thus, we assumed a new index that is very sensitive to any change in the total number of publications, the total number of citations, and citations of each publication. The new index is called HY-index, is more sensitive to any change in the publications or the citations. The suggested data of the two authors have been discussed with various situations by using HY-index. This index has been applied to the authors of the recent paper as a real study case by using their data from SCOPUS.

scholarly journals Global research trends in hyperuricemia: A bibliometric and visualised study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingxi Zhang ◽  
Hui Li ◽  
Dan Xing ◽  
Jianhao Lin
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Research Output ◽  
H Index ◽  
Genome Wide ◽  
Global Trend ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Science Citation Index Expanded ◽  
Global Research

ABSTRACT Objectives The global trend of research on hyperuricaemia (HUA) has not been well studied. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the trend of research on HUA and compare the findings in publications from different countries, institutions, journals, and authors, to predict the research hotspots. Methods Publications related to HUA were searched using the Science Citation Index-Expanded Web of Science. The data were analysed by using the bibliometric methodology. Additionally, a graphical mapping was generated by using the VOS viewer software to carry out a co-occurrence analysis and to investigate the trend of publications in this field. Results A total of 6313 articles were included. The number of publications was increasing globally yearly. USA was the leading country in global research in this field, with the largest number of publications and citations as well as the highest H-index (H-index reflects both the number of publications and the number of citations per publication). PLOS One published the largest number of publications related to HUA. JOHNSON RJ T has published the largest number of papers in this field. Published studies could be classified into six clusters: ‘Pathophysiology’, ‘HUA and metabolic syndrome’, ‘HUA and cardiovascular disease’, ‘HUA and gout’, ‘HUA and nephropathy’, and ‘Genome-wide research’. ‘Pathophysiology’, ‘HUA and cardiovascular disease’, ‘HUA and gout’, and ‘Genome-wide research’ were predicted as the next hot topics in HUA research. Conclusions USA was the leading country in global research in this field. It is expected that an increasing research output will continue to be observed in the near future. ‘Pathophysiology’, ‘HUA and cardiovascular disease’, ‘HUA and gout’, and ‘Genome-wide research’ may be the next hotspots and hence need more attention in the future.

The H-index in Life and Health Sciences: Advantages, Drawbacks and Challenging Opportunities

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Estimation Method ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Simple Modification ◽  
H Index ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Scientific Achievements

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of scientific publications. The h-index offers a consistent estimation method about a researcher’s overall scientific achievements since it combines the total number of publications (i.e., productivity) and the number of citations (i.e., quality of those publications). In other words, the h-index is intended to measure simultaneously the quality and quantity of scientific output in a cumulative approach and does not provide data regarding the recent productivity. This editorial presents advantages and limitations of h-index that all researchers in health sciences need to be aware of, especially if this metric is used for professional progression, and discusses the simple modification indexed to “academic/scientific age”. It is obvious that no single metric is perfect, and the use of two or more metrics is more prone to success.

Scientific publications in internal medicine and family medicine: a comparative cross-sectional study in Swiss university hospitals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Sebo ◽  
Sylvain de Lucia ◽  
Nathalie Vernaz
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
H Index ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background Family medicine is a relatively new academic medical discipline. We aimed to compare the main bibliometric indices of hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine versus family medicine in Switzerland. Methods We conducted this cross-sectional study in March 2020. We selected all hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. Using Web of Science, after removing from both groups of physicians the 5% with the highest number of publications, we extracted the number of publications, the number of publications per year, the number of citations, the number of citations per year, the number of citations per publication and the h-index. We compared the data between the two groups using negative binomial regressions and the proportion of physicians having at least one publication using chi-square tests. Results We included 349 physicians in the study (internal medicine: 51%, men: 51%). The median number of publications was three [interquartile range (IQR) = 18], the median number of citations was nine (IQR = 158) and the median h-index was one (IQR = 5). All bibliometric indices were similar in both groups, as was the proportion of physicians having at least one publication (family medicine: 87% versus 82%, P = 0.15). Conclusions We found no association between the bibliometric indices and the medical specialty. Further studies are needed to explore other important indicators of academic output, such as those more specifically assessing its quality and scientific importance.

scholarly journals Global Research on Osteosarcoma, 1999–2019: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Wu ◽  
Baixing Wei ◽  
Yuanpei Cheng ◽  
Yongbo Li
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Status ◽  
H Index ◽  
Global Trends ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Research Hotspots

Abstract Background Osteosarcoma is a primary malignant bone tumor that occurs in children and adolescents. Increasing numbers of scholars have studied its development and treatment. To fully understand the current status of osteosarcoma research and global trends therein, we performed a bibliometric and visual analysis of osteosarcoma studies published between 1999 and 2019. Methods We searched the Web of Science database for publications on osteosarcoma. The basic characteristics of this sample of publications, such as H indices, annual outputs, languages of publication, and authors, journals, institutions, and countries of origin, were determined. Co-citation, collaboration, and keyword co-occurrence were analyzed using CiteSpace software. Results The sample comprised 16,934 articles. The number of publications increased annually. H indices and total numbers of citations were far higher for articles from the United States than for those from other countries. Among institutions, the largest proportion of articles originated from Shanghai Jiaotong University. R. Gorlick was the author with the highest H index and total number of citations. Oncology Letters published the largest number of articles and Cancer Research was the most frequently cited journal. The five most frequently appearing keywords were “osteosarcoma,” “cancer,” “expression,” “apoptosis,” and “metastasis.” The analysis generated 10 major clusters of keywords and 23 clusters of co-cited references. Conclusions The findings of this study have guiding significance for researchers seeking cooperating institutions and partners for osteosarcoma research, popular journals and important literature in the field, an understanding of the knowledge base for this research, and up-to-date identification of research hotspots and trends. Keywords: osteosarcoma, bibliometric, citespace, visual analysis, co-citation

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document