Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userMeasuring the evaluation and impact of scientific works and their authors
266
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Problems for evaluation and impact of published scientific works and their authors are discussed. The role of citations in this process is pointed out. Different bibliometric indicators are reviewed in this connection and ways for generation of new bibliometric indices are given. The influence of different circumstances, like self-citations, number of authors, time dependence and publication types, on the evaluation and impact of scientific papers are considered. The repercussion of works citations and their content is investigated in this respect. Attention is paid also on implicit citations which are not covered by the modern bibliometrics but often are reflected in the peer reviews. Some aspects of the Web analogues of citations and new possibilities of the Internet resources in evaluating authors achievements are presented.
rate research
Read More
Using bibliometric data artificially generated through a model of citation dynamics calibrated on empirical data, we compare several indicators for the scientific impact of individual researchers. The use of such a controlled setup has the advantage of avoiding the biases present in real databases, and allows us to assess which aspects of the model dynamics and which traits of individual researchers a particular indicator actually reflects. We find that the simple citation average performs well in capturing the intrinsic scientific ability of researchers, whatever the length of their career. On the other hand, when productivity complements ability in the evaluation process, the notorious $h$ and $g$ indices reveal their potential, yet their normalized variants do not always yield a fair comparison between researchers at different career stages. Notably, the use of logarithmic units for citation counts allows us to build simple indicators with performance equal to that of $h$ and $g$. Our analysis may provide useful hints for a proper use of bibliometric indicators. Additionally, our framework can be extended by including other aspects of the scientific production process and citation dynamics, with the potential to become a standard tool for the assessment of impact metrics.
Recent research has found that select scientists have a disproportional share of highly cited papers. Researchers reasoned that this could not have happened if success in science was random and introduced a hidden parameter Q, or talent, to explain this finding. So, the talented high-Q scientists have many high impact papers. Here I show that an upgrade of an old random citation copying model could also explain this finding. In the new model the probability of citation copying is not the same for all papers but is proportional to the logarithm of the total number of citations to all papers of its author. Numerical simulations of the model give results similar to the empirical findings of the Q-factor article.
The broad coverage of the search for the Higgs boson in the mainstream media is a relative novelty for high energy physics (HEP) research, whose achievements have traditionally been limited to scholarly literature. This paper illustrates the results of a scientometric analysis of HEP computing in scientific literature, institutional media and the press, and a comparative overview of similar metrics concerning representative particle physics measurements. The picture emerging from these scientometric data documents the scientific impact and social perception of HEP computing. The results of this analysis suggest that improved communication of the scientific and social role of HEP computing would be beneficial to the high energy physics community.
The number of publications and the number of citations received have become the most common indicators of scholarly success. In this context, scientific writing increasingly plays an important role in scholars scientific careers. To understand the relationship between scientific writing and scientific impact, this paper selected 12 variables of linguistic complexity as a proxy for depicting scientific writing. We then analyzed these features from 36,400 full-text Biology articles and 1,797 full-text Psychology articles. These features were compared to the scientific impact of articles, grouped into high, medium, and low categories. The results suggested no practical significant relationship between linguistic complexity and citation strata in either discipline. This suggests that textual complexity plays little role in scientific impact in our data sets.
Despite the apparent cross-disciplinary interactions among scientific fields, a formal description of their evolution is lacking. Here we describe a novel approach to study the dynamics and evolution of scientific fields using a network-based analysis. We build an idea network consisting of American Physical Society Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) numbers as nodes representing scientific concepts. Two PACS numbers are linked if there exist publications that reference them simultaneously. We locate scientific fields using a community finding algorithm, and describe the time evolution of these fields over the course of 1985-2006. The communities we identify map to known scientific fields, and their age depends on their size and activity. We expect our approach to quantifying the evolution of ideas to be relevant for making predictions about the future of science and thus help to guide its development.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
