- May 2023
-
-
Citation impact indicators play a relevant role in the evaluation of researchers’ scientific production and can influence research funding and future research outputs. The H-index is widely used in this regard, in spite of several shortcomings such as not considering the actual contribution of each author, the number of authors, their overall scientific production and the scientific quality of citing articles. Several authors have highlighted some of these limits. Alternative systems have been proposed but have gained less fortune.In order to show that fairer criteria to assess researchers’ scientific impact can be achieved, a workable example is presented through a novel method, integrating the aforementioned elements by using information available in bibliographic databases.A better, merit-based proxy measure is warranted and can be achieved, although a perfect score without shortcomings is a chimera. Any proposal on a new measure would require clear reasoning, easy math and a consensus between publishers, considering researchers’ and research funders’ point of view. In any case, the relevance of authors’ scientific achievements cannot be adequately represented by a quantitative index only, and qualitative judgements are also necessary. But the time is ripe to make decisions on a fairer, although proxy, measure of scientific outputs.
My complete review:
Take Off Your Mask
I genuinely appreciate the dedicated effort put into developing a new approach for measuring citations. However, I respectfully disagree with the effectiveness of the h-index as a reliable metric, and I believe that proposing a new metric that closely resembles it may not address the existing flaws adequately. Furthermore, I strongly advocate for the inclusion of qualitative measurements alongside quantitative ones, as I believe a comprehensive evaluation should consider both aspects.
The h-index is a simplified measure that counts the number of papers that have been published by a researcher, and the number of times those papers have been cited. However, it is a flawed measure because it does not directly take into account the quality of the papers that have been published. A researcher could have a high h-index by publishing a large number of papers that are not very well-cited, or by publishing a small number of papers that are very well-cited.
I believe that it is important to include qualitative measurements in addition to quantitative measurements. Qualitative measurements can be used to assess the impact of a researcher's work, and the quality of the work that has been published. For example, qualitative measurements could be used to assess the impact of a researcher's work on other researchers, or the impact of a researcher's work on the field of science.
I believe that a new measure of citation should include both quantitative and qualitative measurements. This would allow for a more accurate and reliable assessment of a researcher's impact.
I would like to suggest that the new measure of citation should include the following qualitative measurements:
- The impact of the researcher's work on other researchers.
- The impact of the researcher's work on the field of science.
- The quality of the researcher's work.
With the advancement of technology, we now have the capability to utilize applications such as Open Knowledge Maps, Scite, or Vosviewer to explore the context of citations, their interconnectedness within a network, and the specific keywords employed in the citing manuscripts.
I believe that these qualitative measurements would provide a more accurate and reliable assessment of a researcher's impact than the h-index alone.
About the #TakeOffYourMask I would like to introduce the idea of a hashtag called #TakeOffYourMask as a symbol of my commitment to challenging the reliance on prestige-based assessments, such as the h-index, and embracing a more authentic representation of our research endeavors.
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Apr 2022
-
-
COVID-19 Vaccination Field Guide: 12 Strategies for Your Community-. (n.d.). 48.
-
- Feb 2022
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Inasaridze, K. (2022). COVID-19-related symptoms’ assessment tool. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wf8rv
-
- Jan 2022
-
docs.rangelandsgateway.org docs.rangelandsgateway.org
-
Three principal themes will guide CEAP investments and activities in the future (Maresch et al. 2008): 1. �Research addressing effective and efficient implementation of conservation practices and programs to meet environmental goals and enhance environmental quality. • �Continue and expand CEAP research projects on the effects and benefits of conservation practices for soil and water quality at the watershed and landscape scales. • �Implement a new research and assessment initiative for grazing lands designed to provide scientific evidence for implementation of conservation practices at the landscape scale. • �Determine the critical processes and attributes to be measured at the appropriate landscape position for evaluation of environmental benefits. • �Expand the scope of assessment to include evaluation of a full suite of ecosystem services influenced by conservation practices and programs.
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
-
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
-
Davis, N., & correspondent, N. D. S. (2021, December 31). What do we know about the Omicron Covid variant so far? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/31/what-do-we-know-about-the-omicron-covid-variant-so-far
-
- Jun 2021
-
www.economist.com www.economist.com
-
See how age and illnesses change the risk of dying from covid-19 | The Economist. (n.d.). Retrieved June 29, 2021, from https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator
-
- Sep 2020
-
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
-
Prof Fiona Fidler | Collaborative assessment for trustworthy science: The repliCATS project. (2020, July 27). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhDKzEsPouI&feature=youtu.be
-
- Jul 2020
-
www.ox.ac.uk www.ox.ac.uk
-
Oxford leads development of risk prediction model for more tailored COVID-19 shielding advice | University of Oxford. (n.d.). Retrieved 23 June 2020, from http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-06-22-oxford-leads-development-risk-prediction-model-more-tailored-covid-19-shielding
-
- Jun 2020
-
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
-
McKie, R., Editor, S., Helm, and T., & Editor, P. (2020, May 17). Scientists divided over coronavirus risk to children if schools reopen. The Observer. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/17/scientists-divided-over-coronavirus-risk-to-children-if-schools-reopen
-
- May 2020
-
leedsunilibrary.wordpress.com leedsunilibrary.wordpress.com
-
The Ethics of Online Research. (2018, August 30). Leeds University Library Blog. https://leedsunilibrary.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/the-ethics-of-online-research/
-
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Olthof, M., Hasselman, F., & Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A. (2020, May 1). Complexity In Psychological Self-Ratings: Implications for research and practice. Retrieved from psyarxiv.com/fbta8
-
- Apr 2020
-
psyarxiv.com psyarxiv.com
-
Wolf, M. G. (2020, April 26). Survey Uses May Influence Survey Responses. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/c4hd6
-
