145 research outputs found
The Rise and Rise of Citation Analysis
With the vast majority of scientific papers now available online, this paper
describes how the Web is allowing physicists and information providers to
measure more accurately the impact of these papers and their authors. Provides
a historical background of citation analysis, impact factor, new citation data
sources (e.g., Google Scholar, Scopus, NASA's Astrophysics Data System Abstract
Service, MathSciNet, ScienceDirect, SciFinder Scholar, Scitation/SPIN, and
SPIRES-HEP), as well as h-index, g-index, and a-index.Comment: 15 pages, accepted for publication in Physics World (Janury 2007
Investigating the information-seeking behaviour of academic lawyers: From Ellis's model to design.
Information-seeking is important for lawyers, who have access to many dedicated electronic resources.However there is considerable scope for improving the design of these resources to better support information-seeking. One way of informing design is to use information-seeking models as theoretical lenses to analyse users’ behaviour with existing systems. However many models, including those informed by studying lawyers, analyse information-seeking at a high level of abstraction and are only likely to lead to broad-scoped design insights. We illustrate that one potentially useful (and lowerlevel) model is Ellis’s - by using it as a lens to analyse and make design suggestions based on the information-seeking behaviour of twenty-seven academic lawyers, who were asked to think aloud whilst using electronic legal resources to find information for their work. We identify similar information-seeking behaviours to those originally found by Ellis and his colleagues in scientific domains, along with several that were not identified in previous studies such as ‘updating’ (which we believe is particularly pertinent to legal information-seeking). We also present a refinement of Ellis’s model based on the identification of several levels that the behaviours were found to operate at and the identification of sets of mutually exclusive subtypes of behaviours
The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe's g index
The g index was introduced by Leo Egghe as an improvement of Hirsch's index h
for measuring the overall citation record of a set of articles. It better takes
into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations than the h
index. I propose to sharpen this g index by excluding the self-citations. I
have worked out nine practical cases in physics and compare the h and g values
with and without self-citations. As expected, the g index characterizes the
data set better than the h index. The influence of the self-citations appears
to be more significant for the g index than for the h index.Comment: 9 pages, 2 figures, submitted to Scientometric
Correlações entre a contagem de citações de pesquisadores brasileiros, usando o Web of Science, Scopus e Scholar
Recommended from our members
Defining and applying a language for discovery
In order to design better search experiences, we need to understand the complexities of human information-seeking behaviour. In this paper, we propose a model of information behaviour based on the needs of users across a range of search and discovery scenarios. The model consists of a set of modes that that users employ to satisfy their information goals.
We discuss how these modes relate to existing models of human information seeking behaviour, and identify areas where they differ. We then examine how they can be applied in the design of interactive systems, and present examples where individual modes have been implemented in interesting or novel ways. Finally, we consider the ways in which modes combine to form distinct chains or patterns of behaviour, and explore the use of such patterns both as an analytical tool for understanding information behaviour and as a generative tool for designing search and discovery experiences
Metrics to evaluate research performance in academic institutions: A critique of ERA 2010 as applied in forestry and the indirect H2 index as a possible alternative
Excellence for Research in Australia (ERA) is an attempt by the Australian
Research Council to rate Australian universities on a 5-point scale within 180
Fields of Research using metrics and peer evaluation by an evaluation
committee. Some of the bibliometric data contributing to this ranking suffer
statistical issues associated with skewed distributions. Other data are
standardised year-by-year, placing undue emphasis on the most recent
publications which may not yet have reliable citation patterns. The
bibliometric data offered to the evaluation committees is extensive, but lacks
effective syntheses such as the h-index and its variants. The indirect H2 index
is objective, can be computed automatically and efficiently, is resistant to
manipulation, and a good indicator of impact to assist the ERA evaluation
committees and to similar evaluations internationally.Comment: 19 pages, 6 figures, 7 tables, appendice
The end of the beginning: a reflection on the first five years of the HRI conference
This study presents a historical overview of the International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (HRI). It summarizes its growth, internationalization and collaboration. Rankings for countries, organizations and authors are provided. Furthermore, an analysis of the military funding for HRI papers is performed. Approximately 20% of the papers are funded by the US Military. The proportion of papers from the US is around 65% and the dominant role of the US is only challenged by the strong position of Japan, in particular by the contributions by ATR
Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis
The h-index has received an enormous attention for being an indicator that measures the quality of researchers and organizations. We investigate to what degree authors can inflate their h-index through strategic self-citations with the help of a simulation. We extended Burrell’s publication model with a procedure for placing self-citations, following three different strategies: random self-citation, recent self-citations and h-manipulating self-citations. The results show that authors can considerably inflate their h-index through self-citations. We propose the q-index as an indicator for how strategically an author has placed self-citations, and which serves as a tool to detect possible manipulation of the h-index. The results also show that the best strategy for an high h-index is publishing papers that are highly cited by others. The productivity has also a positive effect on the h-index
The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews : a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research
© 2014 Bunn et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: There has been a growing emphasis on evidence-informed decision making in health care. Systematic reviews, such as those produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, have been a key component of this movement. The UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Systematic Review Programme currently supports 20 Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). The aim of this study was to identify the impacts of Cochrane reviews published by NIHR funded CRGs during the years 2007-11. Methods: We sent questionnaires to CRGs and review authors, interviewed guideline developers and used bibliometrics and documentary review to get an overview of CRG impact and to evaluate the impact of a sample of 60 Cochrane reviews. We used a framework with four categories (knowledge production, research targeting, informing policy development, and impact on practice/services). Results: A total of 1502 new and updated reviews were produced by the 20 NIHR funded CRGs between 2007-11. The clearest impacts were on policy with a total of 483 systematic reviews cited in 247 sets of guidance; 62 were international, 175 national (87 from the UK) and 10 local. Review authors and CRGs provided some examples of impact on practice or services, for example safer use of medication, the identification of new effective drugs or treatments and potential economic benefits through the reduction in the use of unproven or unnecessary procedures. However, such impacts are difficult to objectively document and the majority of reviewers were unsure if their review had produced specific impacts. Qualitative data suggested that Cochrane reviews often play an instrumental role in informing guidance although a poor fit with guideline scope or methods, reviews being out of date and a lack of communication between CRGs and guideline developers were barriers to their use. Conclusions: Health and economic impacts of research are generally difficult to measure. We found that to be the case with this evaluation. Impacts on knowledge production and clinical guidance were easier to identify and substantiate than those on clinical practice. Questions remain about how we define and measure impact and more work is needed to develop suitable methods for impact analysis.Peer reviewe
The fruits of collaboration in a multidisciplinary field
Collaboration between researchers and between research organizations is generally considered a desirable course of action, in particular by some funding bodies. However, collaboration within a multidisciplinary community, such as the Computer–Human Interaction (CHI) community, can be challenging. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the CHI conference proceedings to determine if papers that have authors from different organization or countries receive more citations than papers that are authored by members of the same organization. There was no significant difference between these three groups, indicating that there is no advantage for collaboration in terms of citation frequency. Furthermore, we tested if papers written by authors from different organizations or countries receive more best paper awards or at least award nominations. Papers from only one organization received significantly fewer nominations than collaborative papers
- …