Misplaced Pages

Science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Ranking of the world scientist
Part of a series on
Citation metrics

The science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators is a multidimensional ranking of the world's scientists produced since 2015 by a team of researchers led by John P. A. Ioannidis at Stanford.

Main

Based on data from Scopus, this indicators explore about 8 million records of scientists’ citations in order to rank a subset of 200,000 most-cited authors across all scientific fields. This is commonly referred to as Stanford ranking of the 2% best scientists.

The ranking is achieved via a composite indicator built on six citation metrics

  • Total citations;
  • Hirsch h-index;
  • Coauthorship-adjusted Schreiber hm-index;
  • The number of citations to papers as a single author;
  • The number of citations to papers as single or first author;
  • The number of citations to papers as single, first, or last author.

Data

Data (about 200,000 records) are freely downloadable from Elsevier through the International Center for the Study of Research (ICSR) Lab.

Output

The index classifies researchers into 22 scientific fields and 174 sub-fields. Different rankings are produced: career-long and most recent year, with and without self-citations. This results in four different configurations. The difference between this ranking and the pure h-index is that it is sensitive to details of co-authorship and author positions: configurations such as single, first, and last author are given more emphasis. Many authors point to the importance of the index created by Ioannidis in the context of accurate, cheap and simple descriptions of research systems, Being listed in Stanford's Rank is treated as prestigious and translates into increased visibility of scientists, which may translate into increased networking potential and for obtaining research funding. Moreover, The rank offers an opportunity to researchers in a field to compare the citation behavior of their field with others.

Reception

The papers introducing the ranking have been quoted extensively by authors working in Bibliometrics and Scientometrics. For example, reference describing an update to the methodology of this index number receives about 200 citations in Google Scholar from authors publishing in journals such as SAGE's Research on Social Work Practice, Elsevier's Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, Springer's Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, Oxford Academic's The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, and Springer's Scientometrics (journal).

The older methodological paper is quoted even more, from journal such as MIT Press's Quantitative Science Studies, Springer's Scientometrics and many others.

These articles variously point to the methodological papers and associated measure to discuss social aspects of the publication activity, such as unequal access to publishing of different social or national groups, including gender bias or the properties of the underlying Scopus' abstract and citation database.

See also

References

  1. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Klavans, R., Boyack, K. W. (1 July 2016). "Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines". PLOS Biology. 14 (7). Public Library of Science: e1002501. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 4930269. PMID 27367269.
  2. ^ Ioannidis, J. P. A., Baas, J., Klavans, R., Boyack, K. W. (12 August 2019). "A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field". PLOS Biology. 17 (8). Public Library of Science: e3000384. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 6699798. PMID 31404057.
  3. ^ Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boyack, K. W., Baas, J. (16 October 2020). "Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators". PLOS Biology. 18 (10). Public Library of Science: e3000918. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000918. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 7567353. PMID 33064726.
  4. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2022), September 2022 data-update for "Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators", vol. 4, Elsevier BV, doi:10.17632/btchxktzyw.4, retrieved 17 November 2022
  5. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2024), "Bibliometrics", August 2024 data-update for "Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators", vol. 7, Elsevier Data Repository, doi:10.17632/btchxktzyw.7, retrieved 5 October 2024
  6. ^ Petersen, Kai; Ali, Nauman Bin (2021). "An analysis of top author citations in software engineering and a comparison with other fields". Scientometrics. 126 (11): 9147–9183. doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04144-1.
  7. ^ Singh, P. K. (1 January 2022). "t-index: entropy based random document and citation analysis using average h-index". Scientometrics. 127 (1): 637–660. doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04222-4. ISSN 1588-2861.
  8. Tohalino, Jorge A.V.; Amancio, Diego R. (2022). "On predicting research grants productivity via machine learning". Journal of Informetrics. 16 (2). arXiv:2106.10700. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2022.101260.
  9. Oliveira, Leticia DE; Reichert, Fernanda; Zandonà, Eugenia; Soletti, Rossana C.; Staniscuaski, Fernanda (2021). "The 100,000 most influential scientists rank: The underrepresentation of Brazilian women in academia". Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 93. doi:10.1590/0001-3765202120201952.
  10. ^ Hodge, D. R., Turner, P. R. (1 March 2023). "Who are the Top 100 Contributors to Social Work Journal Scholarship? A Global Study on Career Impact in the Profession". Research on Social Work Practice. 33 (3). SAGE Publications Inc: 338–349. doi:10.1177/10497315221136623. ISSN 1049-7315.
  11. Perneger, T. (5 September 2023). "Authorship and citation patterns of highly cited biomedical researchers: a cross-sectional study". Research Integrity and Peer Review. 8 (1): 13. doi:10.1186/s41073-023-00137-1. ISSN 2058-8615. PMC 10478343. PMID 37667388.
  12. Updated count in Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=science-wide+author+databases+of+standardized+citation+indicators&btnG=
  13. ^ Zandonà, E. (1 July 2022). "Female ecologists are falling from the academic ladder: A call for action". Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation. 20 (3): 294–299. Bibcode:2022PEcoC..20..294Z. doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2022.04.001. ISSN 2530-0644.
  14. Jones, A. W. (1 March 2022). "Highly cited forensic practitioners in the discipline legal and forensic medicine and the importance of peer-review and publication for admission of expert testimony". Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. 18 (1): 37–44. doi:10.1007/s12024-021-00447-0. ISSN 1556-2891. PMID 35129820.
  15. Ferraro, K. F. (1 November 2022). "Disciplinary Roots of 300 Top-Ranked Scientific Contributors to Gerontology: From Legacy to Enriching Our Discovery". The Journals of Gerontology: Series A. 77 (11): 2149–2154. doi:10.1093/gerona/glac129. ISSN 1079-5006. PMC 9678198. PMID 36409829.
  16. Monte-Serrat, D. M., Cattani, C. (1 June 2021). "Interpretability in neural networks towards universal consistency". International Journal of Cognitive Computing in Engineering. 2: 30–39. doi:10.1016/j.ijcce.2021.01.002. ISSN 2666-3074.
  17. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Baas, J., Klavans, R., Boyack, K. W. (12 August 2019). "A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field". PLOS Biology. 17 (8). Public Library of Science: e3000384. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384. ISSN 1545-7885. PMID 31404057.
  18. Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., Karimi, R. (1 February 2020). "Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies". Quantitative Science Studies. 1 (1): 377–386. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00019. ISSN 2641-3337.
  19. Szomszor, M., Pendlebury, D. A., Adams, J. (1 May 2020). "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess". Scientometrics. 123 (2): 1119–1147. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5. ISSN 1588-2861.
  20. Wu, C. (2023). "The gender citation gap: Why and how it matters". Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne de Sociologie. 60 (2): 188–211. doi:10.1111/cars.12428. ISSN 1755-618X. PMID 36929271.
Academic publishing
Journals
Papers
Grey literature
Other publication types
Impact and ranking
Reform and access
Versioning
Indexes and search engines
Related topics
Lists
Category: