2019
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_14
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Overview of Author-Level Indicators of Research Performance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 161 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although individual level indicators for articles and authors have been studied frequently (Wildegaard, 2019), there is less certainty about the reliability of indicators at the individual level of a book (Zuccala & Robinson-Garcia, 2019, pp. 720-723).…”
Section: Visibility and Impact Indicatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although individual level indicators for articles and authors have been studied frequently (Wildegaard, 2019), there is less certainty about the reliability of indicators at the individual level of a book (Zuccala & Robinson-Garcia, 2019, pp. 720-723).…”
Section: Visibility and Impact Indicatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The literature on performance measurement and indicators development is very rich. A state-of-the-art review on the h-index and its related literature can be found in Schubert and Schubert (2019) and Wildgaard (2019) offers a detailed description of the available indicators of research performance at individual level.…”
Section: Moving From Indicators Development To Performance Models Devmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Deriving a fair, unbiased, and easily generated quantitative index serving as a reasonable first-pass metric for comparing the relative performance of academic researchers is -by the very complexity, diversity, and intangibility of research output across academic disciplines -impossible (1). However, that unachievable aim has not discouraged bibliometricians and non-bibliometricians alike from developing scores of citationbased variants (2,3) in an attempt to do exactly that, from the better-known h-index (4, 5) (h papers with at least h citations), m-quotient (4, 5) (h-index ÷ number of years publishing), and g-index (6) (unique largest number such that the top g papers decreasingly ordered by citations have least g 2 citations), to the scores of variants of these and other indices -e.g., h 2 -index, e-index (7), χ-index (8), h m -index (9), g mindex (10), etc. (3).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, that unachievable aim has not discouraged bibliometricians and non-bibliometricians alike from developing scores of citationbased variants (2,3) in an attempt to do exactly that, from the better-known h-index (4, 5) (h papers with at least h citations), m-quotient (4, 5) (h-index ÷ number of years publishing), and g-index (6) (unique largest number such that the top g papers decreasingly ordered by citations have least g 2 citations), to the scores of variants of these and other indices -e.g., h 2 -index, e-index (7), χ-index (8), h m -index (9), g mindex (10), etc. (3). Each metric has its own biases and strengths (11)(12)(13), suggesting that several should be used simultaneously to assess citation performance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation