Publication patterns of award-winning forest scientists and implications for the ERA journal ranking

Publication patterns of 79 forest scientists awarded major international forestry prizes during 1990-2010 were compared with the journal classification and ranking promoted as part of the 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA) by the Australian Research Council. The data revealed that these scientists exhibited an elite publication performance during the decade before and two decades following their first major award. An analysis of their 1703 articles in 431 journals revealed substantial differences between the journal choices of these elite scientists and the ERA classification and ranking of journals. Implications from these findings are that additional cross-classifications should be added for many journals, and there should be an adjustment to the ranking of several journals relevant to the ERA Field of Research classified as 0705 Forestry Sciences.Comment: 12 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables, 49 references; Journal of Informetrics (2011

Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists

Recently, the abundance of digital data enabled the implementation of graph based ranking algorithms that provide system level analysis for ranking publications and authors. Here we take advantage of the entire Physical Review publication archive (1893-2006) to construct authors' networks where weighted edges, as measured from opportunely normalized citation counts, define a proxy for the mechanism of scientific credit transfer. On this network we define a ranking method based on a diffusion algorithm that mimics the spreading of scientific credits on the network. We compare the results obtained with our algorithm with those obtained by local measures such as the citation count and provide a statistical analysis of the assignment of major career awards in the area of Physics. A web site where the algorithm is made available to perform customized rank analysis can be found at the address http://www.physauthorsrank.orgComment: Revised version. 11 pages, 10 figures, 1 table. The portal to compute the rankings of scientists is at http://www.physauthorsrank.or

Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner

The standard data that we use when computing bibliometric rankings of scientists are just their publication/citation records, i.e., so many papers with 0 citation, so many with 1 citation, so many with 2 citations, etc. The standard data for bibliometric rankings of departments have the same structure. It is therefore tempting (and many authors gave in to temptation) to use the same method for computing rankings of scientists and rankings of departments. Depending on the method, this can yield quite surprising and unpleasant results. Indeed, with some methods, it may happen that the "best" department contains the "worst" scientists, and only them. This problem will not occur if the rankings satisfy a property called consistency, recently introduced in the literature. In this paper, we explore the consequences of consistency and we characterize two families of consistent rankings.Bibliometrics, ranking of scientists, ranking of departments

Ranking of Hungarian Scientists using H-Index

The article presents the latest ranking list of Hungarian scientists in 2023. The ranking is presented primarily according to the h-index of scientists. Scientists with the same h-index are ranked by the number of citations. We present the top 34 Hungarian scientists with the minimum h-index 104. h-index can be determined from the following online databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and the Publish or Perish program. The ranking is edited using the Google Scholar database. We also present the Orcid ID number of scientists. The first chapter is the introduction, in the second chapter we present the latest ranking list of Hungarian scientists in 2023, the third chapter is the conclusions

Rankings Scientists, Journals and Countries using h-Index

Indexes in scientometrics are based on citations. However, in contrast to the journal impact factor, which gives only the ranking of the scientific journals, ordered by impact factor, indexes in scientometrics are suitable for ranking of scientists, scientific journals and countries. In this paper the h-index, h5-index, the World ranking the top of 25 Highly Cited Researchers (h > 100) and the ranking of 25 scientists in Hungarian Institutions according to their Google Scholar Citations public profiles are considered. These indexes (h5-index) are applied for making of the list of top 20 publications (journals and proceedings) in the field of Robotics. The World ranking is done of the best 50 countries according to h-index in year 2014. Data are obtained from the portal Scimago

The Measurement of Intellectual Influence

We examine the problem of measuring influence based on the information contained in the data on the communications between scholarly publications, judicial decisions, patents, web pages, and other entities. The measurement of influence is useful to address several empirical questions such as reputation, prestige, aspects of the diffusion of knowledge, the markets for scientists and scientific publications, the dynamics of innovation, ranking algorithms of search engines in the World Wide Web, and others. In this paper we ask why any given methodology is reasonable and informative applying the axiomatic method. We find that a unique ranking method can be characterized by means of five axioms: anonymity, invariance to citation intensity, weak homogeneity, weak consistency, and invariance to splitting of journals. This method is easily implementable and turns out to be different from those regularly used in social and natural sciences, arts and humanities, and computer science.Intellectual Influence, Citations, Ranking Methods, Consistency.

Regularity in the research output of individual scientists: An empirical analysis by recent bibliometric tools

This paper proposes an empirical analysis of several scientists based on their time regularity, defined as the ability of generating an active and stable research output over time, in terms of both quantity/publications and impact/citations. In particular, we empirically analyse three recent bibliometric tools to perform qualitative/quantitative evaluations under the new perspective of regularity. These tools are respectively (1) the PY/CY diagram, (2) the publication/citation Ferrers diagram and triad indicators, and (3) a year-by-year comparison of the scientists' output (Borda's ranking). Results of the regularity analysis are then compared with those obtained under the classical perspective of overall production. The proposed evaluation tools can be applied to competitive examinations for research position/promotion, as complementary instruments to the commonly adopted bibliometric technique