Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices

Panaretos, John; Malesios, Chrisovalantis

doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2174-9

Cited by 107 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(121 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The performance indicators of the researchers were also included in the analysis, such as the number of citations, the H-index and the M-index. [14][15][16][17][18] Statistical analysis The development of a database and the statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 18.0 for Windows. For the statistical analysis, regarding the grant holder categories, researchers were stratified into three groups: levels 1A and 1B, levels 1C and 1D and level 2.…”

Section: Variables Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 The H-index consists of a single number that seeks to summarize two dimensions of academic performance: productivity (number of publications) and visibility (citations for those publications). 18,30,31 One point that has been emphasized about the H-index is that it counteracts both the excessive amount of publications with few citations as well as low productivity with many citations. 32 In our analysis, the median H-index for researchers in the field of Hematology/Oncology was 11, which was significantly higher for categories 1A and IB, with an H-index of 14.…”

Section: Impact Of the Scientific Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Profile and scientific production of the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) researchers in the field of Hematology/Oncology

Oliveira

Martelli

Quirino

et al. 2014

Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflict of interest: noneObjective: several studies have examined the academic production of the researchers at the CNPq, in several areas of knowledge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scientific production of researchers in Hematology/Oncology who hold scientific productivity grants from the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development. Methods: the Academic CVs of 28 researchers in Hematology/Oncology with active grants in the three-year period from 2006 to 2008 were included in the analysis. The variables of interest were: institution, researchers' time after doctorate, tutoring of undergraduate students, masters and PhD degree, scientific production and its impact. Results: from a total of 411 researchers in Medicine, 28 (7%) were identified as being in the area of Hematology/Oncology. There was a slight predominance of males (53.6%) and grant holders in category 1. Three Brazilian states are responsible for approximately 90% of the researchers: São Paulo (21,75%), Rio de Janeiro (3,11%), and Minas Gerais (2, 7%). During their academic careers, the researchers published 2,655 articles, with a median of 87 articles per researcher (IQR = 52 to 122). 65 and 78% of this total were indexed on the Web of Science and Scopus databases, respectively. The researchers received 14,247 citations on the WoS database with a median of 385 citations per researcher. The average number of citations per article was 8.2. Conclusion: in this investigation, it was noted that researchers in the field of Hematology/Oncology have a relevant scientific output from the point of view of quantity and quality compared to other medical specialties.

show abstract

Section: Variables Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Impact Of the Scientific Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Profile and scientific production of the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) researchers in the field of Hematology/Oncology

Oliveira

Martelli

Quirino

et al. 2014

Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the h index appears better suited than IF for individual researchers, there are disadvantages (Panaretos & Malesios, 2009). It is bounded by the total number of publications and so disadvantages new researchers, however significant their work.…”

Section: Citation Measures For Researchersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking citation measures among the Australian education professoriate

Albion

2012

Aust. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Individual researchers and the organisations for which they work are interested in comparative measures of research performance for a variety of purposes. Such comparisons are facilitated by quantifiable measures that are easily obtained and offer convenience and a sense of objectivity. One popular measure is the Journal Impact Factor based on citation rates but it is a measure intended for journals rather than individuals. Moreover, educational research publications are not well represented in the databases most widely used for calculation of citation measures leading to doubts about the usefulness of such measures in education. Newer measures and data sources offer alternatives that provide wider representation of education research. However, research has shown that citation rates vary according to discipline and valid comparisons depend upon the availability of discipline specific benchmarks. This study sought to provide such benchmarks for Australian educational researchers based on analysis of citation measures obtained for the Australian education professoriate.

show abstract

“…These can also have their cons. A prominent critical review of the h-index can be found in a report by the joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research (Adler, Ewing & Taylor 2008), while the extensive article by Panaretos & Malesios (2009) also critically reviews the h-index, and alternative single metrics (see also Moed &van Leeuwen 1996 andBornmann &Daniel 2007).…”

Section: Important Caveatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, a number of objective, normalised metrics, rather than solely one, seems likely to persist. As argued by Panaretos & Malesios (2009), these should also be used in combination with other criteria such as memberships on editorial boards, awards, invitations or peer reviews when assessing the overall contributions of individual researchers.…”

Section: Total Citationsmentioning

confidence: 99%