Untitled

Lan, Kwok Cheung; Ho, Kei Shiu; Luk, Robert W. P.; Leong, Hong Va

doi:10.1002/asi.v59:6

Cited by 162 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 328 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many variations of and alternatives to the h -index have been proposed since 2005 [17,29-31], for example, to give more weight to highly cited papers [30], incorporating the variables of total number and age of citations [29] and allowing comparability across disciplines [31]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two h-Index Benchmarks for Evaluating the Publication Performance of Medical Informatics Researchers

Emam¹,

Arbuckle²,

Jonker³

et al. 2012

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe h-index is a commonly used metric for evaluating the publication performance of researchers. However, in a multidisciplinary field such as medical informatics, interpreting the h-index is a challenge because researchers tend to have diverse home disciplines, ranging from clinical areas to computer science, basic science, and the social sciences, each with different publication performance profiles.ObjectiveTo construct a reference standard for interpreting the h-index of medical informatics researchers based on the performance of their peers.MethodsUsing a sample of authors with articles published over the 5-year period 2006–2011 in the 2 top journals in medical informatics (as determined by impact factor), we computed their h-index using the Scopus database. Percentiles were computed to create a 6-level benchmark, similar in scheme to one used by the US National Science Foundation, and a 10-level benchmark.ResultsThe 2 benchmarks can be used to place medical informatics researchers in an ordered category based on the performance of their peers. A validation exercise mapped the benchmark levels to the ranks of medical informatics academic faculty in the United States. The 10-level benchmark tracked academic rank better (with no ties) and is therefore more suitable for practical use.ConclusionsOur 10-level benchmark provides an objective basis to evaluate and compare the publication performance of medical informatics researchers with that of their peers using the h-index.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two h-Index Benchmarks for Evaluating the Publication Performance of Medical Informatics Researchers

Emam¹,

Arbuckle²,

Jonker³

et al. 2012

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Medicine, Physics, Engineering, Mathematics etc. ), owing to the different citation rates (Antonakis and Lalive 2008). The present analysis can be helpful for guiding potential authors and members of the scientific (academic) community in the Manufacturing area.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Another tangible sign of the popularity of h is the appearance of many proposals for new variants and improvements (Banks 2006;Batista et al 2006;Braun et al 2006;BiHui et al 2007;Burrell 2007;Katsaros et al 2007;Sidiropoulos et al 2007;Antonakis and Lalive 2008;Woeginger 2008;Franceschini and Maisano 2009;Lehmann et al 2010;Schreiber 2010;Franceschini et al 2010). Braun et al (2006) proposed using the h-index for evaluating and comparing scientific journals as well.…”

Section: H-indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometric positioning of scientific manufacturing journals: a comparative analysis

Franceschini

Maisano

2010

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes some of the most popular scientific journals in the Manufacturing field from the point of view of four bibliometric indicators: the ISI impact factor (ISI-IF), the Hirsch (h) index-for-journal, the total number of citations and the h-spectrum. h-spectrum is a novel tool based on h, making it possible to (i) identify a reference profile of the typical authors of a journal, (ii) compare different journals and (iii) provide a rough indication of their ''bibliometric positioning'' in the scientific community. Results of this analysis can be helpful for guiding potential authors and members of the scientific community in the Manufacturing area. Of particular interest is the construction of maps based on h-spectrum and ISI-IF to compare journals and monitor their bibliometric positioning over time. A large amount of empirical data are presented and discussed.

show abstract

“…There has been much research in calculating quality degrees of products, people, and objects [6], [7] using reputation based methods. A key concept for evaluating Wikipedia articles is the peer review process.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wikipedia is not thought to have a peer review system because most texts are instantly made and saved, though no one reviews these texts. However, Stvilia et al [6] mentioned that the open edit system was a kind of peer review system where editors of the system vote on explicit or implicit features of the texts.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Implicit Positive Ratings for Quality Assessment of Wikipedia Articles

Suzuki

2013

Journal of Information Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper, we propose a method to identify high-quality Wikipedia articles by using implicit positive ratings. One of the major approaches for assessing Wikipedia articles is a text survival ratio based approach. In this approach, when a text survives beyond multiple edits, the text is assessed as high quality. However, the problem is that many low quality articles are misjudged as high quality, because every editor does not always read the whole article. If there is a low quality text at the bottom of a long article, and the text has not seen by the other editors, then the text survives beyond many edits, and the text is assessed as high quality. To solve this problem, we use a section and a paragraph as a unit instead of a whole page. In our method, if an editor edits an article, the system considers that the editor gives positive ratings to the section or the paragraph that the editor edits. From experimental evaluation, we confirmed that the proposed method could improve the accuracy of quality values for articles.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 162 publications

References 328 publications

Two h-Index Benchmarks for Evaluating the Publication Performance of Medical Informatics Researchers

Two h-Index Benchmarks for Evaluating the Publication Performance of Medical Informatics Researchers

Bibliometric positioning of scientific manufacturing journals: a comparative analysis

Effects of Implicit Positive Ratings for Quality Assessment of Wikipedia Articles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About