References
These are some references we used for this work:
1) G. Abramo, T. Cicero, and C. A. DbAngelo. Assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4):659b 667, 2011.
2) D. E. Acuna, S. Allesina, and K. P. Kording. Future impact: Predicting scientific success. Nature, 489(7415):201, 2012.
3) A. A. Agrawal. Corruption of journal impact factors. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 20(4):157, 2005.
4) S. Alonso, F. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera. hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h-and g-indices. Scientometrics, 82(2):391b 400, 2009.
5) S. Alonso, F. J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera. h-index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of informetrics, 3(4):273b 289, 2009.
6) V. Anauati, S. Galiani, and R. H. GC!lvez. Quantifying the life cycle of scholarly articles across fields of economic research. Economic Inquiry, 54(2):1339b 1355, 2016.
7) T. Anderson, R. Hankin, and P. Killworth. Beyond the durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output. Scientometrics, 76(3):577b 588, 2008.
8) J. Bar-Ilan. Which h-index?b a comparison of wos, scopus and google scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2):257b 271, 2008.
9) C. Bartneck and S. Kokkelmans. Detecting h-index manipulation through self- citation analysis. Scientometrics, 87(1):85b 98, 2010.
10) P. D. Batista, M. G. Campiteli, and O. Kinouchi. Is it possible to compare resear- chers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68(1):179b 189, 2006.
11) C. W. Belter. Bibliometric indicators: opportunities and limits. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(4):219, 2015.
12) C. T. Bergstrom and J. D. West. Assessing citations with the eigenfactorTM metrics, 2008.
13) C. T. Bergstrom, J. D. West, and M. A. Wiseman. The eigenfactorTM metrics. Journal of neuroscience, 28(45):11433b 11434, 2008.
14) J. Bollen, M. A. Rodriguez, and H. Van de Sompel. Mesur: Usage-based metrics of scholarly impact. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL b07, pages 474b 474, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
15) G. J. Borjas and K. B. Doran. Prizes and productivity how winning the fields medal affects scientific output. Journal of human resources, 50(3):728b 758, 2015.
16) L. Bornmann. Scientific peer review. Annual review of information science and technology, 45(1):197b 245, 2011.
17) L.BornmannandH.-D.Daniel.What do we know about the hindex? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology, 58(9):1381b 1385, 2007.
18) L. Bornmann and H.-D. Daniel. What do citation counts measure? a review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of documentation, 64(1):45b 80, 2008.
19) L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, and H.-D. Daniel. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? a comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 59(5):830b 837, 2008.
20) L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, and H.-D. Daniel. The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3):407b 414, 2010.
21) L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, S. E. Hug, and H.-D. Daniel. A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3):346b 359, 2011.
22) M. Bras-AmorC3s, J. Domingo-Ferrer, and V. Torra. A bibliometric index based on the collaboration distance between cited and citing authors. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2):248b 264, 2011.
23) Q.L.Burrell.Ontheh-index,thesizeofthehirschcoreandjinbsa-index.Journal of Informetrics, 1(2):170b 177, 2007.
24) E. Callaway. Beat it, impact factor! publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature News, 535(7611):210, 2016.
25) P. Campbell. Not-so-deep impact. Nature, 435(77045):1003b 1004, 2005.
26) S. Chamberlain. Consuming article-level metrics: Observations and lessons. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2):4b 13, 2013.
27) J. Chavda and A. Patel. Measuring research impact: bibliometrics, social media, altmetrics, and the bjgp. Br J Gen Pract, 66(642):e59b e61, 2016.
28) F.S.ChewandA.Relyea-Chew. How research becomes knowledge in radiology: an analysis of citations to published papers. American Journal of Roentgenology, 150(1):31b 37, 1988.
29) S.ColeandJ.R.Cole. Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American sociological review, pages 377b 390, 1967.
30) S. Corneliussen. Bad summer for the journal impact factor. Physics Today, 2016.
31) B. Crew. Google Scholar reveals its most influential papers for 2019. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/google-scholar-reveals-most-influential-papers-research-citations-twenty-nineteen, 2019. Online; accessed 19-December-2019.
32) S. N. Dorogovtsev and J. F. Mendes. 11(11):882, 2015. Ranking scientists. Nature Physics,
33) V. Durieux and P. A. Gevenois. Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology, 255(2):342b 351, 2010.
34) P. M. Editors et al. The impact factor game, 2006.
35) L. Egghe. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1):131b 152, 2006.
36) L.EggheandR.Rousseau.Anh-indexweightedbycitationimpact.Information Processing & Management, 44(2):770b 780, 2008.
37) C.Franzoni,G.Scellato,andP.Stephan.Changingincentivestopublish.Science, 333(6043):702b 703, 2011.
38) E. Garfield. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4):359b 375, 1979.
39) E. Garfield and I. H. Sher. New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American documentation, 14(3):195b 201, 1963.
40) Google. Google Scholar Top Publications. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues, 2019. Online; accessed 19-December-2019.
41) S. Haustein and V. LariviC(re. The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: Possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In Incentives and performance, pages 121b 139. Springer, 2015.
42) S. Haustein, I. Peters, C. R. Sugimoto, M. Thelwall, and V. LariviC(re. Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4):656b 669, 2014.
43) D. Hicks, P. Wouters, L. Waltman, S. De Rijcke, and I. Rafols. Bibliometrics: the leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature News, 520(7548):429, 2015.
44) J. E. Hirsch. An index to quantify an individualbs scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences, 102(46):16569b 16572, 2005.
45) J. E. Hirsch. Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(49):19193b 19198, 2007.
46) B. Jin. H-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus, 1(1):8b 9, 2006.
47) B. Jin, L. Liang, R. Rousseau, and L. Egghe. The r-and ar-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese science bulletin, 52(6):855b 863, 2007.
48) J. S. Katz and D. Hicks. How much is a collaboration worth? a calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40(3):541b 554, 1997.
49) J. Kaur, F. Radicchi, and F. Menczer. Universality of scholarly impact metrics. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4):924b 932, 2013.
50) V. Kiermer, V. LariviC(re, and C. MacCallum. Measuring up: Impact factors do not reflect article citation rates, 2016.
51) M. Kosmulski. A new hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI newsletter, 2(3):4b 6, 2006.
52) C. LabbC). Ike antkare one of the great stars in the scientific firmament. 2010.
53) V. Lariviere, V. Kiermer, C. J. MacCallum, M. McNutt, M. Patterson, B. Pulverer, S. Swaminathan, S. Taylor, and S. Curry. A simple proposal for the publication of journal citation distributions. BioRxiv, page 062109, 2016.
54) C. J. Lee, C. R. Sugimoto, G. Zhang, and B. Cronin. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1):2b 17, 2013.
55) S. Lehmann, A. D. Jackson, and B. E. Lautrup. Measures for measures. Nature, 444(7122):1003, 2006.
56) J. Lundberg. Lifting the crownb citation z-score. Journal of informetrics, 1(2):145b 154, 2007.
57) J. Lundberg, A. Fransson, M. Brommels, J. Sk? r, and I. Lundkvist. Is it better or just the same? article identification strategies impact bibliometric assessments. Scientometrics, 66(1):183b 197, 2006.
58) B. R. Martin. Whither research integrity? plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment, 2013.
59) B. R. Martin and J. Irvine. Assessing basic research: some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research policy, 12(2):61b 90, 1983.
60) L. I. Meho and K. Yang. A new era in citation and bibliometric analyses: Web of science, scopus, and google scholar. arXiv preprint cs/0612132, 2006.
61) L. I. Meho and K. Yang. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of lis faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the american society for information science and technology, 58(13):2105b 2125, 2007.
62) B. Meyer, C. Choppy, J. Staunstrup, and J. Van Leeuwen. Research evaluation for computer science. Commun. ACM, 52(4):31b 34, 2009.
63) J. Mingers and L. Leydesdorff. A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European journal of operational research, 246(1):1b 19, 2015.
64) H. Moed, R. De Bruin, and T. Van Leeuwen. New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3):381b 422, 1995.
65) H. F. Moed. The impact-factors debate: the isibs uses and limits. Nature, 415(6873):731, 2002.
66) H. F. Moed. The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8):575b 583, 2007.
67) E. OrduC1a-Malea, A. MartC-n-MartC-n, and E. Delgado-LC3pez-CC3zar. The next bibliometrics: Almetrics (author level metrics) and the multiple faces of author impact. El profesional de la informaciC3n (EPI), 25(3):485b 496, 2016.
68) L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd. The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford InfoLab, 1999.
69) R. K. Pan and S. Fortunato. Author impact factor: tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact. Scientific reports, 4:4880, 2014.
70) O. Penner, R. K. Pan, A. M. Petersen, K. Kaski, and S. Fortunato. On the predictability of future impact in science. Scientific reports, 3:3052, 2013.
71) A.M.Petersen,S.Fortunato,R.K.Pan,K.Kaski,O.Penner,A.Rungi,M.Riccaboni, H. E. Stanley, and F. Pammolli. Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43):15316b 15321, 2014.
72) H.Piwowar.Altmetrics:Valueallresearchproducts.Nature,493(7431):159,2013.
73) D. Price. Networks of scientific papers: The pattern of bibliographic reference indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science, 149(3683), 1965.
74) E. Resources. Putting Altmetric data to use. https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/understanding-research-metrics/altmetric-data/, 2019. Online; accessed 19-December-2019.
75) T. Reuters. Glossary of thomson scientific terminology, 2015.
76) E. J. Rinia, T. N. Van Leeuwen, H. G. Van Vuren, and A. F. Van Raan. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the netherlands. Research policy, 27(1):95b 107, 1998.
77) M. Rossner, H. Van Epps, and E. Hill. Show me the data, 2007.
78) R. Rousseau. Journal evaluation: Technical and practical issues. 2002.
79) R. Rousseau and F. Y. Ye. A proposal for a dynamic h-type index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11):1853b 1855, 2008.
80) F. Ruane and R. Tol. Rational (successive) h-indices: An application to economics in the republic of ireland. Scientometrics, 75(2):395b 405, 2008.
81) G. Ruocco, C. Daraio, V. Folli, and M. Leonetti. Bibliometric indicators: the origin of their log-normal distribution and why they are not a reliable proxy for an individual scholarbs talent. Palgrave Communications, 3:17064, 2017.
82) S. Saha, S. Saint, and D. A. Christakis. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(1):42, 2003.
83) M. Sanderson. Revisiting h measured on uk lis and ir academics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(7):1184b 1190, 2008.
84) M. Schreiber. To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 10(4):040201, 2008.
85) M. Schreiber. Restricting the h-index to a publication and citation time window: A case study of a timed hirsch index. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1):150b 155, 2015.
86) P. O. Seglen. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Bmj, 314(7079):497, 1997.
87) U. Senanayake, M. Piraveenan, and A. Zomaya. The pagerank-index: Going beyond citation counts in quantifying scientific impact of researchers. PloS one, 10(8):e0134794, 2015.
88) A. Serenko and M. Dohan. Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: Example from the field of artificial intelligence. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4):629b 648, 2011.
89) A. Sidiropoulos, D. Katsaros, and Y. Manolopoulos. Generalized hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72(2):253b 280, 2007.
90) P. Stephan, R. Veugelers, and J. Wang. Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics. Nature News, 544(7651):411, 2017.
91) P. E. Stephan. How economics shapes science, volume 1. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA, 2012.
92) N. W. Storer. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. 1973.
93) N. J. van Eck and L. Waltman. Generalizing the h-and g-indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4):263b 271, 2008.
94) T. van Leeuwen and H. Moed. Development and application of journal impact measures in the dutch science system. Scientometrics, 53(2):249b 266, 2002.
95) E. Van Nierop. Why do statistics journals have low impact factors? Statistica Neerlandica, 63(1):52b 62, 2009.
96) A. van Raan. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3):397b 420, 1996.
97) A. F. Van Raan. Comparison of the hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indi- cators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. scientometrics, 67(3):491b 502, 2006.
98) J. Wang. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3):851b 872, 2013.
99) J. Wang, R. Veugelers, and P. Stephan. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46(8):1416b 1436, 2017.
100) J. D. West, M. C. Jensen, R. J. Dandrea, G. J. Gordon, and C. T. Bergstrom. Author-level eigenfactor metrics: Evaluating the influence of authors, institutions, and countries within the social science research network community. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4):787b 801, 2013.
101) A. Yong. Critique of hirschbs citation index: A combinatorial fermi problem. Notices of the AMS, 61(9):1040b 1050, 2014.