A bibliometric index based on the complete list of cited Publications

We propose a new index, the j-index, which is defined for an author as the sum of the square roots of the numbers of citations to each of the author’s publications. The idea behind the j-index it to remedy a drawback of the h-index - that the h-index does not take into account the full citation record of a researcher. The square root function is motivated by our desire to avoid the possible bias that may occur with a simple sum when an author has several very highly cited papers. We compare the j-index to the h-index, the g-index and the total citation count for three subject areas using several association measures. Our results indicate that that the association between the j-index and the other indices varies according to the subject area. One explanation of this variation may be due to the proportion of citations to publications of the researcher that are in the h-core. The j-index is not an h-index variant, and as such is intended to complement rather than necessarily replace the h-index and other bibliometric indicators, thus providing a more complete picture of a researcher’s achievements

A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators

An increasing demand for bibliometric assessment of individuals has led to a growth of new bibliometric indicators as well as new variants or combinations of established ones. The aim of this review is to contribute with objective facts about the usefulness of bibliometric indicators of the effects of publication activity at the individual level. This paper reviews 108 indicators that can potentially be used to measure performance on the individual author level, and examines the complexity of their calculations in relation to what they are supposed to reflect and ease of end-user application.Comment: to be published in Scientometrics, 201

Benchmarking some Portuguese S&T system research units: 2nd Edition

The increasing use of productivity and impact metrics for evaluation and comparison, not only of individual researchers but also of institutions, universities and even countries, has prompted the development of bibliometrics. Currently, metrics are becoming widely accepted as an easy and balanced way to assist the peer review and evaluation of scientists and/or research units, provided they have adequate precision and recall. This paper presents a benchmarking study of a selected list of representative Portuguese research units, based on a fairly complete set of parameters: bibliometric parameters, number of competitive projects and number of PhDs produced. The study aimed at collecting productivity and impact data from the selected research units in comparable conditions i.e., using objective metrics based on public information, retrievable on-line and/or from official sources and thus verifiable and repeatable. The study has thus focused on the activity of the 2003-06 period, where such data was available from the latest official evaluation. The main advantage of our study was the application of automatic tools, achieving relevant results at a reduced cost. Moreover, the results over the selected units suggest that this kind of analyses will be very useful to benchmark scientific productivity and impact, and assist peer review.Comment: 26 pages, 20 figures F. Couto, D. Faria, B. Tavares, P. Gon\c{c}alves, and P. Verissimo, Benchmarking some portuguese S\&T system research units: 2nd edition, DI/FCUL TR 13-03, Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon, February 201

Benchmarking citation measures among the Australian education professoriate

Individual researchers and the organisations for which they work are interested in comparative measures of research performance for a variety of purposes. Such comparisons are facilitated by quantifiable measures that are easily obtained and offer convenience and a sense of objectivity. One popular measure is the Journal Impact Factor based on citation rates but it is a measure intended for journals rather than individuals. Moreover, educational research publications are not well represented in the databases most widely used for calculation of citation measures leading to doubts about the usefulness of such measures in education. Newer measures and data sources offer alternatives that provide wider representation of education research. However, research has shown that citation rates vary according to discipline and valid comparisons depend upon the availability of discipline specific benchmarks. This study sought to provide such benchmarks for Australian educational researchers based on analysis of citation measures obtained for the Australian education professoriate

Utilising content marketing metrics and social networks for academic visibility

There are numerous assumptions on research evaluation in terms of quality and relevance of academic contributions. Researchers are becoming increasingly acquainted with bibliometric indicators, including; citation analysis, impact factor, h-index, webometrics and academic social networking sites. In this light, this chapter presents a review of these concepts as it considers relevant theoretical underpinnings that are related to the content marketing of scholars. Therefore, this contribution critically evaluates previous papers that revolve on the subject of academic reputation as it deliberates on the individual researchers’ personal branding. It also explains how metrics are currently being used to rank the academic standing of journals as well as higher educational institutions. In a nutshell, this chapter implies that the scholarly impact depends on a number of factors including accessibility of publications, peer review of academic work as well as social networking among scholars.peer-reviewe