Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userMethods for measuring the citations and productivity of scientists across time and discipline
250
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Publication statistics are ubiquitous in the ratings of scientific achievement, with citation counts and paper tallies factoring into an individuals consideration for postdoctoral positions, junior faculty, tenure, and even visa status for international scientists. Citation statistics are designed to quantify individual career achievement, both at the level of a single publication, and over an individuals entire career. While some academic careers are defined by a few significant papers (possibly out of many), other academic careers are defined by the cumulative contribution made by the authors publications to the body of science. Several metrics have been formulated to quantify an individuals publication career, yet none of these metrics account for the dependence of citation counts and journal size on time. In this paper, we normalize publication metrics across both time and discipline in order to achieve a universal framework for analyzing and comparing scientific achievement. We study the publication careers of individual authors over the 50-year period 1958-2008 within six high-impact journals: CELL, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Nature, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), Physical Review Letters (PRL), and Science. In comparing the achievement of authors within each journal, we uncover quantifiable statistical regularity in the probability density function (pdf) of scientific achievement across both time and discipline. The universal distribution of career success within these arenas for publication raises the possibility that a fundamental driving force underlying scientific achievement is the competitive nature of scientific advancement.
rate research
Read More
Citation measures, and newer altmetric measures such as downloads are now commonly used to inform personnel decisions. How well do or can these measures measure or predict the past, current of future scholarly performance of an individual? Using data from the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System we analyze the publication, citation, download, and distinction histories of a cohort of 922 individuals who received a U.S. PhD in astronomy in the period 1972-1976. By examining the same and different measures at the same and different times for the same individuals we are able to show the capabilities and limitations of each measure. Because the distributions are lognormal measurement uncertainties are multiplicative; we show that in order to state with 95% confidence that one persons citations and/or downloads are significantly higher than another persons, the log difference in the ratio of counts must be at least 0.3 dex, which corresponds to a multiplicative factor of two.
The association between productivity and impact of scientific production is a long-standing debate in science that remains controversial and poorly understood. Here we present a large-scale analysis of the association between yearly publication numbers and average journal-impact metrics for the Brazilian scientific elite. We find this association to be discipline-specific, career-age dependent, and similar among researchers with outlier and non-outlier performance. Outlier researchers either outperform in productivity or journal prestige, but they rarely do so in both categories. Non-outliers also follow this trend and display negative correlations between productivity and journal prestige but with discipline-dependent intensity. Our research indicates that academics are averse to simultaneous changes in their productivity and journal-prestige levels over consecutive career years. We also find that career patterns concerning productivity and journal prestige are discipline-specific, having in common a raise of productivity with career age for most disciplines and a higher chance of outperforming in journal impact during early career stages.
In the last decades, the acceleration of urban growth has led to an unprecedented level of urban interactions and interdependence. This situation calls for a significant effort among the scientific community to come up with engaging and meaningful visualizations and accessible scenario simulation engines. The present paper gives a contribution in this direction by providing general methods to evaluate accessibility in cities based on public transportation data. Through the notion of isochrones, the accessibility quantities proposed measure the performance of transport systems at connecting places and people in urban systems. Then we introduce scores rank cities according to their overall accessibility. We highlight significant inequalities in the distribution of these measures across the population, which are found to be strikingly similar across various urban environments. Our results are released through the interactive platform: www.citychrone.org, aimed at providing the community at large with a useful tool for awareness and decision-making.
We demonstrate a comprehensive framework that accounts for citation dynamics of scientific papers and for the age distribution of references. We show that citation dynamics of scientific papers is nonlinear and this nonlinearity has far-reaching consequences, such as diverging citation distributions and runaway papers. We propose a nonlinear stochastic dynamic model of citation dynamics based on link copying/redirection mechanism. The model is fully calibrated by empirical data and does not contain free parameters. This model can be a basis for quantitative probabilistic prediction of citation dynamics of individual papers and of the journal impact factor.
We stress-test the career predictability model proposed by Acuna et al. [Nature 489, 201-202 2012] by applying their model to a longitudinal career data set of 100 Assistant professors in physics, two from each of the top 50 physics departments in the US. The Acuna model claims to predict h(t+Delta t), a scientists h-index Delta t years into the future, using a linear combination of 5 cumulative career measures taken at career age t. Here we investigate how the predictability depends on the aggregation of career data across multiple age cohorts. We confirm that the Acuna model does a respectable job of predicting h(t+Delta t) up to roughly 6 years into the future when aggregating all age cohorts together. However, when calculated using subsets of specific age cohorts (e.g. using data for only t=3), we find that the models predictive power significantly decreases, especially when applied to early career years. For young careers, the model does a much worse job of predicting future impact, and hence, exposes a serious limitation. The limitation is particularly concerning as early career decisions make up a significant portion, if not the majority, of cases where quantitative approaches are likely to be applied.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
