If I have published x no of papers as a first author and y no of papers as the second author, how can I calculate my research impact factor not considering the citation?
Thank you in advance
The Impact factor measures the impact of a journal, not the impact of individual articles.
I think there are heuristic measures, but none that are official. And anyway, no-one should bother with such numerology stuff. If there are some tools to calculate a score, it's unofficial and bogus, and in any case it is irrelevant. You should simply work hard, on your own or with others, and write very good papers that actually answer a question that at least you and a few others find interesting, and without borrowing anything from other sources. That's it.
Why do you need such a score, anyway? It's just a number! You're not going to get medals if you pass some threshold, will you? Concentrate on writing good papers, and that's all.
On RG all authors share the same impact of the journal in which their research published, no difference for the first or second author.
I'm afraid there is no official method to give you a cumulative number based on the individual value/impact of your articles. First of all, I've never read anywhere that the first and second authors get different values of credit for the same work. However, there are certain methods to calculate one's research impact. Aside from the h- and g- indices and citation analysis, there is also Altmetrics. An important aspect of your research impact is the popularity of your work in social media, i.e. how many times your work is mentioned on social media. There is this fun tool called PlumX. It's really simple to work with. PlumX gives you the "capture" and "social media" counts of your paper based on their DOI. I don't know if you can sum up all the PlumX counts and reach a formal credible number regarding the impact of your research. But, it may soon become a more widely-recognized tool in the field of research assessment.
https://plu.mx/plum/a/?doi=
Simply paste your DOI immediately after the "=" sign.
https://www.elsevier.com/authors/journal-authors/measuring-an-articles-impact
Using the IF:s of the journals that a scientist happens to publish in to calculate an individual's "IF" or "score" is complete bogus - no relevance at all. But it's not surprising - many bosses can't bother to dig deeper and actually look at what their scientists have done, and whether the articles/books are enlightening and push the state-of-the-art of the discipline further. It's sad, but true.
Dear Chandan Mahata, I fully agree with Michael Patriksson in that it doesn't make any sense to calculate such individual research impact factors including first and second authorship. The IF of the respective journal counts for each of the authors. In our field of research (chemistry) we normally have multi-author papers, because various co-workers contribute experimental work and measurements etc. We handle authorship in the way the the first author is the one who did most of the work.
I still prefer the alphabetical ordering, since we are more interested in what the paper provides than who was the corresponding author. If a university were to put explicit factors on each of the authors, with perhaps a higher factor on corresponding author, then I would deem them really, really silly.
This is what some would call "codswallop" - and I am among them. An individual IF is a very unofficial measure that has very little use in any serious bibliographic analysis. It is in fact a joke: just because one can create an aggregated number from one's publications does not mean that it is relevant and useful.
But I understand where it's coming from: bosses need figures to show to their bosses, and hence - voilà! - someone creates a numerical measure. But it's bogus, obviously.
Throw it in the waste basket.
I totally understand why you have asked this question. People may ask your independent publication vs. co-authored publications., when they decide to hire you. If I were you, I would put my effort on writing some good articles to A level academic journals, if you can, and claim authority in a certain area within the knowledge bases of your industry.
It's not "If I have published x no of papers,"
but
"If I have published x papers".
You see: x represents the number of papers.
Capiche? :-)
Dear Chandan Mahata, as has become evident from the previous answers, it doesn't make much sense to calculate some kind of "personal impact factor". As a typical example, take the RG score. The RG score is not just a measure of how good your research work is, but it reflects both the quality of your research PLUS your qualified interaction with other researchers.
I think there are no relevant sources to calculate the research factor of authors. However, you may see the RG score as it reflecrs the research interest and also your contribution to the research field. Thanks.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers