Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2013 · 130 citations · 12 references
ManagementBiomedical SciencesData AnalyticsImpact MeasurementScience PolicyBibliometric AnalysisCitation NetworksInterdisciplinary CollaborationPeer ReviewResearch Impact AssessmentAcademic Impact AssessmentCollaboration Impact AssessmentEvaluationPublication Impact AnalysisResearch Performance IndicatorsResearch Productivity MeasurementScientific CoauthorshipScientific Impact Measurement
Researchers collaborate on scientific projects that are often measured by both the quantity and the quality of the resultant peer-reviewed publications. However, not all collaborators contribute to these publications equally, making metrics such as the total number of publications and the H-index insufficient measurements of individual scientific impact. To remedy this, we use an axiomatic approach to assign relative credits to the coauthors of a given paper, referred to as the A-index for its axiomatic foundation. In this paper, we use the A-index to compute the weighted sums of peer-reviewed publications and journal impact factors, denoted as the C- and P-indexes for collaboration and productivity, respectively. We perform an in-depth analysis of bibliometric data for 186 biomedical engineering faculty members and from extensive simulation. It is found that these axiomatically weighted indexes better capture a researcher's scientific caliber than do the total number of publications and the H-index, allowing for fairer and sharper evaluation of researchers with diverse collaborative behaviors.
12
Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research
Per O. Seglen · BMJ · 1997 · 2.5K citations
On the rationale of maximum-entropy methods
E. T. Jaynes · Proceedings of the IEEE · 1982 · 1.7K citations
Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards
Donna K. Ginther, Walter T. Schaffer, Joshua D. Schnell et al. · Science · 2011 · 1.1K citations · Full text