1,721,686 research outputs found
Comparison of several author indices for gauging academic productivity
No full textBackground
Many author indices exist to gauge academic productivity. Several of these indices are calculated based upon an author's scholarly publication record, but the measurement methodology to calculate each index varies considerably, and the precise function being used, as well as the end result, is often complex and difficult to assess.
Method
Two straightforward methods to weigh author productivity from the publication and citation record were evaluated as possible means for providing a clearer assessment of scholarly activity. The author characteristic index (termed c-index) assigns author rank for each publication based upon author position. The characteristic prime (c') -index normalizes author rank from author position, so that the total weight per publication is unity. The top 10 scholars with keyword 'celiac disease' in the Google Scholar database were then assessed using these metrics. Rankings according to total number of publications, h-index, and c- and c'-indices were compared, then tabulated along with total papers included for assessment, and mean values per paper for author position, number of authors, citations, and year of publication.
Results
The order of the top ten authors with keyword 'celiac disease' varied substantially depending upon whether the h-index, c-index, or c'-index was used as a gauge. The characteristic indices assign credit to authors according to their position in an author list. The affiliated metrics provided a more complete picture of scholarly activity.
Conclusions
Academic achievement by scholars, based upon quantitative publication characteristics, has recently become of interest for evaluating job candidates, for determining work performance, and for bestowing awards and honors. The characteristic indices as described herein are readily calculated and interpreted, and may improve the assessment of scholarly activity
Green (Peter), Alexander of Macedon
No full textMuszynski Michel. Green (Peter), Alexander of Macedon. In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, tome 54, fasc. 2, 1976. Histoire (depuis l'Antiquité) — Geschiedenis (sedert de Oudheid) pp. 619-620
Green (Peter). The Greco-Persian Wars.
No full textSalmon Pierre. Green (Peter). The Greco-Persian Wars.. In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, tome 78, fasc. 1, 2000. Antiquite - Oudheid. p. 236
25. Green (Peter), Alexander the Great
No full textPédech Paul. 25. Green (Peter), Alexander the Great. In: Revue des Études Grecques, tome 85, fascicule 404-405, Janvier-juin 1972. pp. 217-218
Green (Peter). The Greco-Persian Wars.
No full textSalmon Pierre. Green (Peter). The Greco-Persian Wars.. In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, tome 78, fasc. 1, 2000. Antiquite - Oudheid. p. 236
Green, Peter, WX4260
No full textThis record was harvested from a previous catalogue system and will be withdrawn in 2025. Information in this record may be superseded or incomplete. Visit this record in UMA's new catalogue at: https://archives.library.unimelb.edu.au/nodes/view/388930Surname: GREEN. Given Name(s) or Initials: PETER. Military Service Number or Last Known Location: WX4260. Missing, Wounded and Prisoner of War Enquiry Card Index Number: 43849.212168
Item: [2016.0049.21223] "Green, Peter, WX4260
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
