180,922 research outputs found
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
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
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
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
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 Ranking of Economists and Management Scientists in Europe
Cet article présente une analyse statistique de la position des économistes français et des spécialistes français des sciences de gestion parmi les chercheurs européens de haut rang. La preuve empirique révÚle que la France ne développe pas fortement ses ressources humaines sur la scÚne internationale. La position de la France en Europe, repérée par les citations (pour les économistes) et les nominations par les pairs (pour les spécialistes des sciences de gestion) des chercheurs de haut rang et normalisée par la taille de la population, est seulement au neuviÚme rang en ce qui concerne les sciences économiques et au huitiÚme rang pour les sciences de gestion. Cela laisse penser que la politique scientifique a encore beaucoup à faire pour améliorer la situation.This note provides a statistical analysis of the position of French economists and French management scientists among the leading European scholars. The evidence shows that France does not strongly develop its human resources in the international setting. Frances position in Europe based on citations (for economists) and peer nominations (for management scientists) of the leading scholars normalized by the size of the population is only rank 9 with respect to economics, and rank 8 with respect to management science. This suggests that there is considerable scope for science policy to improve this situatio
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
- âŠ