The citations is an important factor to evaluate the impact of any work, however within last decade, due to some faults in the evaluation system, this factor seems not to describe the real impact of the cited papers and the cited authors.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277569576_The_impact_of_citation_impact
Research The impact of citation impact
Yes, we can compare its value on many databases, and give more weight to highly cited papers, ruling out reviews and PDG papers, for example.
Yes, I agree that there are weaknesses when an index that may be applied to the productivity and impact of a scholarly journal is used instead as a measure of the work of a researcher. But each of us can still use the actual number of citations of our papers, rather than impact factor or h-index. Let us find happiness in our science and our scientific communication, this is perhaps more important. Thanks.
Self-citations should be counted in different manner, if counted. Many scientists share an opinion that self citations should be excluded from total number of citations.
My colleague brought through his question an alternative impact factor which is based on Google Scholar's citation count! Link follows.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Yours_opinion_about_Alternative_Impact_Factor
Hi Sadeem - Whether publication metrics are good or not has been debated for a long time. In my view it comes down to the point that, like most statistics, they contain some truths, but are only helpful if you understand their limitations. As long as the statistics (especially summary stats such as h-factors) are used as basis for promotions, funding etc., there will be a temptation for many to try and maximize those scores, one way or another, essentially weakening their value. Eliminating self-citations would help, but only a little, as there are still workarounds (such as getting friends/colleagues to cite a to of your work, in exchange for the same...). In sum, publication metrics are imperfect, but so is the entire peer-review process. As long as it is done by people that is not going to change.
Best regards, Norman
Yes, we can compare its value on many databases, and give more weight to highly cited papers, ruling out reviews and PDG papers, for example.
So all the answers agree that the system needs to be modified. Reducing the impact of self citation, making the impacted citation which its impact is based on the position in the paper; citations in the introduction should be given the least points because many of the cited references there are based on non scientific needs. I agree with Norman when he said "In sum, publication metrics are imperfect, but so is the entire peer-review process. As long as it is done by people that is not going to change.", but at least we need to push them to change
An alternative index for scientific evaluation was proposed recently. In my opinion it looks very promising.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_your_thoughts_on_the_L-index_a_novel_index_for_evaluation_of_individual_researchers
The H index i'm sure that is insufficient to analyze the total production of a applied scientific. I have no doubt about it
Right now I have a next paper assessment to be published in a local tech magazine that talks about everything that is not considered by the H index.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals