1. What would you prefer a highly cited paper, or a publication in a high impact journal? and
2. What is considered better?
Lowry, O.H., Rosebrough, N.J., Farr, A.L. and Randall, R.J. (1951), Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 193 (1), 265-275.
It has been cited 308,422 times from Web of Science Core Collection since its publication to 05 October 2015 and the top one in the Web of Science Core Collection.
Journal of Biological Chemistry impact factor in 2014 is 4.573.
There are still some papers published in Science or Nature has no any citations.
Someone who is not first author and corresponding author published hundred papers including 50 papers with 50 citations. The author has h-index 50. The other author published 50 first author papers including 45 papers with 100 citations. The author has h-index 45.
Two authors in the same field, have the same h-index. One published all papers as first author or corresponding author but the other one has no first author or corresponding author papers.
Two authors in the same field, have the same h-index. They have the same number of first author or corresponding author papers. One has paper cited 1000, 10000 even more citations. The other one published all papers less 100 citations.
Think about these situations.
Yuh-Shan Ho
http://dns2.asia.edu.tw/~ysho/
E-mail: [email protected]
Hi, impact factor of journals are based on citations of articles published in it and ultimately a high impact journal article with high citations is considered better! (does it make any sense, I guess so!)
If for example you have a publication in a low impact factor journal say IF1 or 2 but have a lot of citations is that considered a good publication??
Yes, it is a good publication (provided what number is considered "lot"). However to consider such cases, we also have H-index for each researcher based on their number of publications and citations of each publication (irrespective of impact factor of the journal). So if you have large number of publications with large number of citations your H-index will be high.....
H-index for a scientist with 3 publications, each with 150 citations would be 3, and a scientist with 6 publications, with 6 citations each would be 6. Say these scientists are in the same field, whose work would be considered of higher value?
That is rather insightful. May be they should have an international conference just to resolve these issues.
The level of funding available in a country should also factor in somewhat. Scientists from developing countries have lesser funding, and it is harder for them to produce high-impact research.
When making comparisons there should be a level playing field.
Maneet, I dont agree with that........ then later you'll ask similar things in Nobel Prize also. Science cannot be done that way.
Lowry, O.H., Rosebrough, N.J., Farr, A.L. and Randall, R.J. (1951), Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 193 (1), 265-275.
It has been cited 308,422 times from Web of Science Core Collection since its publication to 05 October 2015 and the top one in the Web of Science Core Collection.
Journal of Biological Chemistry impact factor in 2014 is 4.573.
There are still some papers published in Science or Nature has no any citations.
Someone who is not first author and corresponding author published hundred papers including 50 papers with 50 citations. The author has h-index 50. The other author published 50 first author papers including 45 papers with 100 citations. The author has h-index 45.
Two authors in the same field, have the same h-index. One published all papers as first author or corresponding author but the other one has no first author or corresponding author papers.
Two authors in the same field, have the same h-index. They have the same number of first author or corresponding author papers. One has paper cited 1000, 10000 even more citations. The other one published all papers less 100 citations.
Think about these situations.
Yuh-Shan Ho
http://dns2.asia.edu.tw/~ysho/
E-mail: [email protected]
Very interesting question. Contemporary research seems to be oriented towards both. It is simply marketing, just like rating universities, institutions globally. In my view, peer network is strong today that you are either benefiting from quick sands of reputed peer network or just remaining with whatever comes through.
It all depends on what we are looking for from the research in particular topic. When we begin a new area of research then it is easy for him to have more citations.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Academic Writing