A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations for future research

Measuring scientific performance without ties: is scientific leadership the solution?

For many decisions in science, evaluators have to select, assess, and rank authors based on their scientific achievements. However, the most diffused scientific performance bibliometric metric – the h index – produces many ties, precluding its use to define a full ranking of the authors. In turn, recently, Jorge Hirsch1 proposes the ℎɑ index (which measures the number of papers of the h core in which the author was the scientific leader)and the associated rɑ index(percentage of papers belonging to the h core in which the author was leader)to capture the concept of scientific leadership. We suggest using this last measure to break the ties of the h index. The method is extremely simple and provides a complete solution to this critical problem of the h index. To that end, we develop a two steps procedure, which is able to produce a more granulated ranking of the authors.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Measuring scientific performance without ties: Is scientific leadership the solution?

For many decisions in science, evaluators have to select, assess, and rank authors based on their scientific achievements. However, the most diffused scientific performance bibliometric metric – the h index – produces many ties, precluding its use to define a full ranking of the authors. In turn, recently, Jorge Hirsch proposes the h-alpha index (which measures the number of papers of the h core in which the author was the scientific leader)and the associated r-alpha index(percentage of papers belonging to the h core in which the author was leader)to capture the concept of scientific leadership. We suggest using this last measure to break the ties of the h index. The method is extremely simple and provides a complete solution to this critical problem of the h index. To that end, we develop a two steps procedure, which is able to produce a more granulated ranking of the authors

The temporal variability of the OH* airglow layer: A study based on Fourier Transform Spectroscopy and mesospheric models

This work investigates the mesospheric OH* airglow layer. Ground-based observations of its Meinel emission are performed by means of Fourier Transform Spectroscopy at the AWIPEV station, Spitsbergen. Gas kinetic ambient temperatures are derived from the recorded spectra and compared with other data sets, indicating a rather persistent negative temperature offset to co-located spaceborne observations. Furthermore, temperature/brightness fluctuations serve as a diagnostic tool for wave driven perturbations of the OH* airglow layer due to its adiabatic/chemical response. Evidence of a vertical coupling with the lower atmospheric fraction is found on some occasions, corroborating current theories on the wave-mean-flow-interaction as the important driver of mesospheric dynamics. Finally, this work performed gas kinetic simulations, revealing the importance of the combined effect of the O and O2 quenching on the temporal modulation of vertical shifts between different OH* Meinel bands

Teaching Bankruptcy Valuations to Law Students and Other Unnatural Acts

We often measure that which we can as opposed to that in which we are most interested, and fail to appreciate the difference between the two. Experts may aid a trier of fact in measuring fair market value, fair value, investment value, or some other measure of value; however, courts make determinations with regard to a legal standard, not a financial standard. For example, “fair valuation” may be used for determinations of insolvency or the “fair and equitable” rule may be used for determinations of chapter 11 cramdown plan confirmation disputes. Other measures of value may be used in determining the amount of a claim or to satisfy other financial tests in bankruptcy. There is a difference between employing common valuation standards using traditional and well-accepted techniques and fashioning equitable relief demanded by bankruptcy law. Through the lenses of the “insolvency” and “fair and equitable” tests in the bankruptcy process, I suggest that principles of equity offer a competing vision in approaching valuation issues where an expert provides significant input in an overall assessment of the totality of circumstances, the bedrock principle of exercises of equitable remedies. In building the case, I challenge the body of criticisms directed at experts and courts in their construction of valuation models, susceptibility to hindsight bias, and manipulations of assumptions and inputs. I also modestly reject the notion that a market approach is less speculative than an income approach. Both approaches require considerable judgment—one more transparent and the other more opaque. Both approaches must be considered in the robust context of unique disputes, and their use may be driven by the application of specific statutory language. Throughout this Article, I identify various assumptions and inputs to classic valuation approaches and methods that have been rightly contested or unnecessarily confused. The process often requires an expert and a court to make tradeoffs between degrees of (i) relevance and reliability and (ii) opaqueness and transparency. In the end, valuations in bankruptcy disputes look less like lessons in finance, and more like classic fashionings of equitable relief in a court of equity, a needed reminder that finance is the handmaiden of the court and not its jailer