Citation Indexes Accounting for Authorship Order in Coauthored Research—Review and New Proposal

Abambres, Miguel; Arab, Paola Bruno

doi:10.1080/0194262x.2016.1242450

Cited by 15 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The feature of showing the number of citations mentioned in 3.2.5 could be introduced into these aforementioned existing platforms (e.g., Microsoft Academic, Google Scholar, Science Open, ResearchGate, ResearcherID), either explicitly, and/or implicitly by providing citation indexes per author based on the proposal of Abambres and Arab [34], i.e. weighting the authorship order/credit in each publication, as well as the source (WoS, Scopus, or 'others') of each citation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A weighted formula should still be adopted (see Table 1) to evaluate the CV of a candidate. The weighted formula should include elements such as (i) grade average in specific graduation courses, (ii) grade average in specific postgraduate courses, (iii) final PhD classification, (iv) scientific performance (e.g., based on citation indexes proposed by Abambres and Arab [34]), and (v) professional experience. When a position attracts candidates graduated from different countries/institutions, comparing grade averages can be mitigated by the local grading practices, unless (i) all grade systems are converted to a single one before averaging (based on institutional reputation), or (ii) other relative metrics are employed.…”

Section: Suggestions Towards Meritocracymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ineffective Obsessions in Brazilian Academia and Proposals Towards Meritocracy

Abambres

Ribeiro²,

Sousa³

et al. 2018

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Albeit its constitutional claim for quality, Brazilian academia has largely been referred to as unmeritocratic and academic hiring is still inward-oriented. Lattes platform, a public curricular information system, reflects elements of this protectionism. This article assesses two 'obsessions' in Brazilian academia: (i) the 'mandatory' Lattes CV, and (ii) the candidates' assessment criteria in public tenders for faculty positions. Several pros and cons (mostly) of the Lattes platform are identified. The following improvements are proposed: (i) evaluations in public tenders based only on candidate's CV, interview, and a sample lecture, (ii) the dismissal of Lattes CV as a mandatory format, and (iii) the use of platforms as Microsoft Academic, Google Scholar, ORCID or ResearcherID for curricular information. With these recommendations, Brazil can move towards a more meritocratic academic hiring system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Suggestions Towards Meritocracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ineffective Obsessions in Brazilian Academia and Proposals Towards Meritocracy

Abambres

Ribeiro²,

Sousa³

et al. 2018

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(3) As an alternative to CIF and the current IF metrics, the authors would also like to propose a single novel impact factor named 'T imeless Impact Factor (T IF)', where the differences for the current IFs are that it accounts for citations (i) to all publications ever published in the journal, (ii) received until the end of the year preceding the calculation, and (iii) from any source (e.g., WoS, SCOPUS, others) -not just those from WoS-indexed journals (a minute proportion of the citing ones [3] ). Moreover, it is proposed that each citation is weighted as function of its source, as proposed by Abambres and Arab [57] -1.0 for WoS, 0.8 for SCOPUS, and 0.5 for others. T he expression of the T IF then reads:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Counts, Not the Journal

Abambres¹,

Ribeiro

Sousa

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If there is one thing every bibliometrician agrees, is that you should never use the journal impact factor (JIF) to evaluate research performance for an article or an individual-that is a mortal sin'. Few sentences could define so precisely the uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) better than Anthony van Raan's. T his manuscript presents a critical overview on the international use, by governments and institutions, of the JIF and/or journal indexing information for individual research quality assessment. Interviews given by Nobel Laureates speaking on this matter

show abstract

“…The position in the list of authors is commonly used to infer co-authors’ contribution and a number of systems have been proposed on this basis. They range from simple calculations based on the rank of the authors such as harmonic authorship credit, fractional authorship credit, inflated authorship [1] to more complex credits (e.g. [7]), some even taking into account the controversial journal’s impact factor [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such they do not attempt to represent and quantify ‘true’ contribution. Despite the growing interest in resolving the issue of authorship contributions in scientific disciplines [1, 3, 15], no standard rank system has been widely recognised or adopted by scientific journals. With this lack of consensus, some journals have implemented a compulsory or recommended section about authors’ contribution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percentage-Based Author Contribution Index. A universal, measure of author contribution to scientific articles

Boyer

Ikeda

Lefort

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deciphering the amount of work provided by different co-authors of a scientific paper has been a recurrent problem in science. Despite the myriad of metrics available, the scientific community still largely relies on the position in the list of authors to evaluate contributions, a metric that attributes subjective and unfounded credit to co-authors. We propose an easy to apply, fair and universally comparable metric to measure and report co-authors contribution in the scientific literature. The proposed Author Contribution Index (ACI) is based on contribution percentages provided by the authors, preferably at the time of submission. Researchers can use ACI for a number of purposes, including comparing the contributions of different authors, describing the contribution profile of a researcher or analysing how contribution changes through time. We provide an example analysis based on data collected from 97 scientists from the field of ecology who voluntarily responded to an online anonymous survey.

show abstract

Citation Indexes Accounting for Authorship Order in Coauthored Research—Review and New Proposal

Cited by 15 publications

References 17 publications

Ineffective Obsessions in Brazilian Academia and Proposals Towards Meritocracy

Ineffective Obsessions in Brazilian Academia and Proposals Towards Meritocracy

Research Counts, Not the Journal

Percentage-Based Author Contribution Index. A universal, measure of author contribution to scientific articles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About