Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userThe correlation coefficient between citation metrics and winning a Nobel or Abel Prize
240
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
M.V. Simkin
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Computing such correlation coefficient would be straightforward had we had available the rankings given by the prize committee to all scientists in the pool. In reality we only have citation rankings for all scientists. This means, however, that we have the ordinal rankings of the prize winners with regard to citation metrics. I use maximum likelihood method to infer the most probable correlation coefficient to produce the observed pattern of ordinal ranks of the prize winners. I get the correlation coefficients of 0.47 and 0.59 between the composite citation indicator and getting Abel Prize and Fields Medal, respectively. The correlation coefficient between getting a Nobel Prize and the Q-factor is 0.65. These coefficients are of the same magnitude as the correlation coefficient between Elo ratings of the chess players and their popularity measured as numbers of webpages mentioning the players.
rate research
Read More
F1000 recommendations have been validated as a potential data source for research evaluation, but reasons for differences between F1000 Article Factor (FFa scores) and citations remain to be explored. By linking 28254 publications in F1000 to citations in Scopus, we investigated the effect of research level and article type on the internal consistency of assessments based on citations and FFa scores. It turns out that research level has little impact, while article type has big effect on the differences. These two measures are significantly different for two groups: non-primary research or evidence-based research publications are more highly cited rather than highly recommended, however, translational research or transformative research publications are more highly recommended by faculty members but gather relatively lower citations. This can be expected because citation activities are usually practiced by academic authors while the potential for scientific revolutions and the suitability for clinical practice of an article should be investigated from the practitioners points of view. We conclude with a policy relevant recommendation that the application of bibliometric approaches in research evaluation procedures should include the proportion of three types of publications: evidence-based research, transformative research, and translational research. The latter two types are more suitable to be assessed through peer review.
Researchers affiliated with multiple institutions are increasingly seen in current scientific environment. In this paper we systematically analyze the multi-affiliated authorship and its effect on citation impact, with focus on the scientific output of research collaboration. By considering the nationality of each institutions, we further differentiate the national multi-affiliated authorship and international multi-affiliated authorship and reveal their different patterns across disciplines and countries. We observe a large share of publications with multi-affiliated authorship (45.6%) in research collaboration, with a larger share of publications containing national multi-affiliated authorship in medicine related and biology related disciplines, and a larger share of publications containing international type in Space Science, Physics and Geosciences. To a country-based view, we distinguish between domestic and foreign multi-affiliated authorship to a specific country. Taking G7 and BRICS countries as samples from different S&T level, we find that the domestic national multi-affiliated authorship relate to more on citation impact for most disciplines of G7 countries, while domestic international multi-affiliated authorships are more positively influential for most BRICS countries.
This paper investigates the impact of institutes and papers over time based on the heterogeneous institution-citation network. A new model, IPRank, is introduced to measure the impact of institution and paper simultaneously. This model utilises the heterogeneous structural measure method to unveil the impact of institution and paper, reflecting the effects of citation, institution, and structural measure. To evaluate the performance, the model first constructs a heterogeneous institution-citation network based on the American Physical Society (APS) dataset. Subsequently, PageRank is used to quantify the impact of institution and paper. Finally, impacts of same institution are merged, and the ranking of institutions and papers is calculated. Experimental results show that the IPRank model better identifies universities that host Nobel Prize laureates, demonstrating that the proposed technique well reflects impactful research.
Work of Lev Landau had a profound impact on the physics in 20th century. Landau had created the paradigms that had framed the conversations on the outstanding problems in physics for decades. He has laid the foundations for our understanding of quantum matter such as superfluidity, superconductivity and the theory of Fermi Liquid. Here we present sampled Nobel Archive data on the winning nomination that led to the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1962.
In over five years, Bornmann, Stefaner, de Moya Anegon, and Mutz (2014) and Bornmann, Stefaner, de Moya Anegon, and Mutz (2014, 2015) have published several releases of the www.excellencemapping.net tool revealing (clusters of) excellent institutions worldwide based on citation data. With the new release, a completely revised tool has been published. It is not only based on citation data (bibliometrics), but also Mendeley data (altmetrics). Thus, the institutional impact measurement of the tool has been expanded by focusing on additional status groups besides researchers such as students and librarians. Furthermore, the visualization of the data has been completely updated by improving the operability for the user and including new features such as institutional profile pages. In this paper, we describe the datasets for the current excellencemapping.net tool and the indicators applied. Furthermore, the underlying statistics for the tool and the use of the web application are explained.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
