78,790 research outputs found
Crediting multi-authored papers to single authors
A fair assignment of credit for multi-authored publications is a
long-standing issue in scientometrics. In the calculation of the -index, for
instance, all co-authors receive equal credit for a given publication,
independent of a given author's contribution to the work or of the total number
of co-authors. Several attempts have been made to distribute the credit in a
more appropriate manner. In a recent paper, Hirsch has suggested a new way of
credit assignment that is fundamentally different from the previous ones: All
credit for a multi-author paper goes to a single author, the called
``-author'', defined as the person with the highest current -index
not the highest -index at the time of the paper's publication) (J. E.
Hirsch, Scientometrics 118, 673 (2019)). The collection of papers this author
has received credit for as -author is then used to calculate a new
index, , following the same recipe as for the usual index. The
objective of this new assignment is not a fairer distribution of credit, but
rather the determination of an altogether different property, the degree of a
person's scientific leadership. We show that given the complex time dependence
of for individual scientists, the approach of using the current value
instead of the historic one is problematic, and we argue that it would be
feasible to determine the -author at the time of the paper's
publication instead. On the other hand, there are other practical
considerations that make the calculation of the proposed very
difficult. As an alternative, we explore other ways of crediting papers to a
single author in order to test early career achievement or scientific
leadership.Comment: 6 pages, 4 figure
A proposal for a quantitative indicator of original research output
The use of quantitative indicators of scientific productivity seems now quite
widespread for assessing researchers and research institutions. There is a
general perception, however, that these indicators are not necessarily
representative of the originality of the research carried out, being primarily
indicative of a more or less prolific scientific activity and of the size of
the targeted scientific subcommunity. We first discuss some of the drawbacks of
the broadly adopted -index and of the fact that it represents, in an average
sense, an indicator derivable from the total number of citations. Then we
propose an indicator which, although not immune from biases, seems more in line
with the general expectations for quantifying what is typically considered
original work. Qualitative arguments on how different indicators may shape the
future of science are finally discussed.Comment: 6 pages, 4 figure
Exploiting citation networks for large-scale author name disambiguation
We present a novel algorithm and validation method for disambiguating author
names in very large bibliographic data sets and apply it to the full Web of
Science (WoS) citation index. Our algorithm relies only upon the author and
citation graphs available for the whole period covered by the WoS. A pair-wise
publication similarity metric, which is based on common co-authors,
self-citations, shared references and citations, is established to perform a
two-step agglomerative clustering that first connects individual papers and
then merges similar clusters. This parameterized model is optimized using an
h-index based recall measure, favoring the correct assignment of well-cited
publications, and a name-initials-based precision using WoS metadata and
cross-referenced Google Scholar profiles. Despite the use of limited metadata,
we reach a recall of 87% and a precision of 88% with a preference for
researchers with high h-index values. 47 million articles of WoS can be
disambiguated on a single machine in less than a day. We develop an h-index
distribution model, confirming that the prediction is in excellent agreement
with the empirical data, and yielding insight into the utility of the h-index
in real academic ranking scenarios.Comment: 14 pages, 5 figure
- …