We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
72

Yes, there is one and only one standard method that is universally employed by reputable academic institutions worldwide. This is how you evaluate a researcher: Read their papers. Attend one of their talks. Ask the opinion of other experts in the field. This is how hiring committees and promotion committees do their job. There are no shortcuts. Parts 1-...


50

I can see a few reasons why your paper was not cited as much as you hoped it to be: Networking indeed does go a long way towards being cited. In my experience this is especially true for areas where many competing approaches are being published (which, by the sound of it, is true in your case). Even if your paper is published in a good venue, this alone ...


39

Similarly, why don't reputable journals introduce a comment space for their published papers, where fellow researchers could appreciate/criticise/query the works? They don't need to create such a space, since these comments can already appear elsewhere on the internet. Nevertheless, some journals have tried, but they typically attract very few comments, ...


36

The ethical rule has to be: cite your work if it's relevant, and don't give it preferential treatment over the work of others. In short: use the same criteria for previous references to your work as you would use for citing others. No excessive citation, no self-censorship.


35

No. Academic publishing is not regulated by any oversight body. There is not even a universal standard for what constitutes a publication.


34

Although it's true that citations are always helpful, there are obviously limits. If the majority of your citations are self-citations, that's usually considered a "red flag." If your paper that came out two years ago has 10 citations, and two or three are from within your group, nobody's really going to have a problem with that. But if your paper gets ...


31

The h-index is a measure of the impact of someone's publication list. An h-index of 10 for example means that the person has published 10 papers with at least 10 citations. The total number of papers published may be higher, but only 10 will have 10 or more citations. Critics argue that this measure disadvantages young researchers who did not have time to ...


31

There are, I think, two distinct factors at work that may help explain some of your puzzlement: Your field's impact factor is not academia's impact factor. For example, society journals in my field have an impact factor of ~ 5, and some of the big names for very splashy studies have impact factors ranging from 20 to 56. Depending on the balance of fields ...


30

The first person who should cite your work is actually YOU. If you simply abandoned your work and you expected others to pick up on it, it mostly does not work this way, unless your work is really ground-breaking. When I search for something on a area I am interested in, it is easy to pick up papers with more citations (which you do not yet have) or authors ...


30

The h-index is defined mathematically based on the number of publications and citations. So the only question is what data source you are using to calculate the h-index. If that source removes publications and citation counts upon retraction, the answer is yes, the h-index can decrease. However, since this is source-based, you could even get occasional ...


28

If your institution has a subscription to Journal Citation Reports (JCR), you can check it there. Try this URL: https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com


27

That happens. Maybe they didn't do a thorough literature study before they published, or they did but before your work was available. This is more frequent than we would like to think. Note that it's generally expected from authors to have done a reasonable effort in searching for previous work, but it's not unethical per se not to reference every previous ...


27

You can't. Google Scholar, like everything Google, does not curate the data. It only indexes them and makes them easy to search through. If the citing document is online it'll be counted as a citation. Google Scholar citations count, h-index and i-10 index are not accurate if you have quality criteria for what constitute a citation (an most reasonable ...


26

If you have access to it, you can very easily do that with Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science portal. Run any query you want, probably starting with the simplest one: Topic=XXXX. Then, select “Analyze results” at the top-right bottom-left of the results list, and sort them by year of publication:


26

All journals that have a high standing have the standing because of the support of the community. If the community loses interest, the journal will drop in the ranking. The top journals have therefore attracted authors for one reason or another. The editorial staff of journals try to maintain this status by making sure the work published there is of good ...


26

In addition to the ones @Coder suggests, perhaps the library classification systems: Library of Congress Dewey Decimal Universal Decimal Classification might be useful? As @tonysdg says below, there are a variety of other system, too.


26

If one claimed that a particular scholar was "above average" or "noted" in their field, is there any good metric by which to support or deny such a claim? No. As a rule of thumb, this isn't the kind of thing that you can measure with a metric. Elvis Presley was the king of rock and roll. Why? Is it because he pumped out more albums than the others? Because ...


22

The only apparent difference between the two being h-index means you don't know enough about these two PIs. Work habits, advising styles, perspectives on the roles of their students...all of these matter. With that out of the way, lets pretend they are, actually, identical. The h-index is still a bad choice. There are a few reasons why: Past performance ...


21

Science Gateway provides an extensive list. It doesn't requires an institutional subscription.


21

There's multiple questions contained within your question that have different answers. Is there independent oversight of Journal Impact Factors? ... Now I am wondering is there a oversight body that regulates the area? This depends on what you mean by "independent". If you mean an official unbiased centralised not-for-profit professional organisation,...


20

I think this is analogous to "why is Harvard a good university, and able to maintain its standing as such?" A partial answer is that (1) it was founded a long time ago, and (2) it was founded by serious people. Given that, further serious people will tend to gravitate to the same institution, creating an inertia in the rankings. A quote from The Crucible (...


20

I think that PLOS ONE is gambling on two key hypotheses: People are very bad at judging future importance --- thus, no "significance" filtering. Search engines and social networks are now much better at delivering articles than subscriptions --- thus, open access. This certainly conforms with my experience: at present I have two PLOS ONE articles, each ...


19

Although just a start, we had a "journal club" over at the stats.se site on such bibliometrics, and had a chat over this particular article; Arnold, Douglas N. & Kristine K. Fowler. 2011. Nefarious Numbers. Notices of the AMS 58(3): 434-437. PDF link from publisher Abstract from initial ArXiv print: We investigate the journal impact factor,...


19

Yes, you can! But that it is possible is by no means to say that it is ethical, practical, wise, or otherwise commendatory. I would be especially concerned about becoming known as the 'person with a kooky idea' rather than as a serious academic researcher. The question becomes, "It is possible to write on a very controversial topic, create a media ...


19

In many fields, the literature moves faster than most people can follow. A journal article can easily be missed. The chance of it being seen now that 5 years have passed is virtually none. The best way to get your work known in many fields is to get out there and personally evangelize it. Give talks at conferences, talk it up to colleagues, etc. Getting ...


18

There is no such index. Publication and citation standards vary significantly between disciplines and even sub-disciplines. Without direct, deep knowledge of the standards in each community, it is simply impossible to compare impact of a journal in field X with the impact of a journal in field Y. (Eigenfactor's extraordinary claims to the contrary require ...


18

The short answer is NONE. A longer answer is "to get the scientific excellence of an author, read their papers and understand their contributions". The problem here is in expecting a number to characterize the contributions and quality of an individual researcher. Probably the only way in which these measures can be useful (and that's stretching it a LOT) ...


18

h-index counts citations regardless of the content of those citations, so citations by people criticizing the paper, disagreeing with it, or pointing out that it's nonsense do still count as citations. (As a plan to improve one's h-index, this seems like a bad plan for a number of reasons. As a concern about the meaning of h-index, it's a concern, though ...


18

As with all bibliometrics, the h-index is indicative at best. There is no magic number that says "now give this person a promotion", but if you have an h-index twice that of your colleagues, it might suggest something interesting. If you really want to use the h-index to see how you compare to other organic chemists, why not look at the h-index of your ...


17

Sounds like a Fermi Problem :) A question I asked myself recently, based on the many cases of plagiarism by top-politicians in Germany in humanities, was, are in humanities more articles/texts published than scholars can actually read completly. The amount of copied text in single phd thesis showed by plagiarism-detection communities in Germany like ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible