Index aims for fair ranking of scientists

Ball, Philip

doi:10.1038/436900a

Cited by 347 publications

(217 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

201

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The idea of ranking scientists within a given field by a single number and the advantages that the h index has over other 35 articles cited Ͼ100 times citation-based indices (for example, ranking by total number of papers, total number of citations, or the number of citations per paper) quickly attracted the attention of major scientific journals, including Science and Nature [11,12]. The h index is seen to have the advantage that it gives a robust estimate of the broad impact of a scientist's cumulative research contributions [5,9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal impact factors,h indices, and citation analyses in toxicology

Bird

2008

J. Med. Toxicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal impact factors,h indices, and citation analyses in toxicology

Bird

2008

J. Med. Toxicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Publication influences hiring, salary, promotion, tenure, and grant decisions (Miller & Serzan, 1984;Peters & Ceci, 1982). It is also a criterion for the evaluation and ranking of departments and universities (Ball, 2005;Haslam et al, 2008;Nosek et al, 2010;Ostriker, Holland, Kuh, & Voytuk, 2009;Phillips, 2007). Expectations for publishing have expanded to faculty at institutions that do not have graduate research programs, to graduate students seeking employment, and even to undergraduates applying to top programs for graduate study.…”

Section: How Evaluation Criteria Can Increase the False Results Rate Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Utopia

Nosek

Spies

Motyl

2012

Perspect Psychol Sci

1,034

415

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An academic scientist's professional success depends on publishing. Publishing norms emphasize novel, positive results. As such, disciplinary incentives encourage design, analysis, and reporting decisions that elicit positive results and ignore negative results. Prior reports demonstrate how these incentives inflate the rate of false effects in published science. When incentives favor novelty over replication, false results persist in the literature unchallenged, reducing efficiency in knowledge accumulation. Previous suggestions to address this problem are unlikely to be effective. For example, a journal of negative results publishes otherwise unpublishable reports. This enshrines the low status of the journal and its content. The persistence of false findings can be meliorated with strategies that make the fundamental but abstract accuracy motive-getting it right-competitive with the more tangible and concrete incentive-getting it published. This article develops strategies for improving scientific practices and knowledge accumulation that account for ordinary human motivations and biases.

show abstract

“…Over the last few years it has been applied to a variety of areas; see for instance [BALL, 2005;BORNMANN & DANIEL, 2005;CRONIN & MEHO, 2006;GLÄNZEL, 2006;HIRSCH, 2007;LIU & ROUSSEAU, 2007;OPPENHEIM, 2007; VAN RAAN, 2006].…”

Section: In 2005 Jorge Hirsch Proposed the H-index (Or Hirsch-index)mentioning

confidence: 99%