What do you think of a new indicator that I propose (K-Index) for the evaluation of a teacher, a researcher? Teacher-researcher evaluation indicators do not currently reflect the true worth of teachers, and everyone complains about this. Teachers and researchers are regularly evaluated for their promotions by their institutions (internally, we can make all the criteria, because in the university they can make criteria specific to it and measurable). Internationally, we need parameters that are measurable, quantifiable and verifiable by all. I suggest taking into account in international terms: - Number of publications with Impact Factor = nP - Number of citations = nC - The international cooperation index = number of co-authors = nCa - factor impacts of publications journals = IFp In my first provisional version, I propose the following formula: K-Index = nP + nC / nP + nCa + ∑Ifp / nP Several databases (Web of Science; Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar;…) give you this basic information for my K-Index calculation formula. A weighting of these parameters will be given at the end of my research of course, as well as the final formula. - What do you think? - What do you think is the most important criterion? - Concretely what would you suggest? I am thinking of writing a publication and proposing a new fair and equitable international evaluation criterion that I would call: Kettab-Index or K-Index
Professor Emeritus Ahmed KETTAB
In my opinion H index is already available for performance measure of researchers.
Dear A. Kettab
As you said, you have to write a paper about it and send it to a specialized journal and see what will happen.
Such open discussion may not be very useful.
Best regards,
Djamel
It's ok but how will reflect K index for the performance of a researcher in all categories.
Dear Professor A. Kettab , Thank you for this interesting thread!
In my point of there are too many index and score and .... who tries to assess Researchers career. and in general it's very subjective because it's depends on area of research.
I think that the citation on the RG is very problematic.Why? It is mainly about communicating what has been said a long time ago in other words. Many researchers have a lot of citation without having any of their original ideas, innovations or creations.
Dear A. Kettab
Indeed a great creativity. My Good Wishes for K-Index.
Regards!
Dear A. Kettab
The proposed K-index still lacks of important factors like ethical and moral metrics, without which it will still be exploited. In fact, the values you mentioned nP, nC, nCa, Ifp and others have been used for internal assessment within universities.
I think that an important factor to take into account to measure the performance of a researcher teacher should be the number of projects that manage to win a funding bag. Well, it is hard work (and it takes time) to participate in local and international funding funds. Finally, most of the research and articles published are financed with the resources of the projects.
Your proposal is very interesting. However, it is very difficult to get a generally acceptable evaluation criteria for researchers/teachers without huge criticisms
Some people still criticize h-index. The impact factor of journals is also receiving criticisms. RG score has also been heavily criticized.
Your proposal is interesting. However, it fails to capture publications in new reputable journals, less than a year old, whose impact factors are yet to be calculated. How about that?
Dear Chinaza Godswill Awuchi
Thank you for your many comments. I agree with you that researchers never agree with the evaluation criteria. My idea is to propose a more fair and equitable index compared to the existing ones. I know it is not easy. I would have positive reviews and negative reviews; but that does not discourage me; but on the contrary stimulates me.
Dear A. Kettab
Thank you very much for considering my answer. Next I propose the following alternative, to quantify the weight of the projects (their relevance must necessarily be discussed).
Governments (science and technology departments) and even university institutions or research cente@rs have a record of the number of projects, and how many articles are linked or are results of those projects.
An alternative would be to define a summation ∑P*N. Where P is a value assigned to the project between 0 and 1 (it is necessary to differentiate between local, national and international), and N: It is the number of articles linked to that project. I think it may be an alternative, although I think a discussion in this sense could give a better equation.
Dear A. Kettab
Thank you for your interesting and impressive comment.
Best regards
Dear Jose Antonio Lara
at the university level; even from a country; your idea can and should work. At the international level there are existing databases which measure the indicators. you have to look at ISI-THOMSON; scopus; Google Scholar; and the existing settings. the 4 parameters that I proposed exist and are regularly measurable.
Dear A. Kettab
Thank you for your interesting and impressive comment.
Best regards
Dear Gil Mahe
Excellent remark: the position of the author. I saw articles with 01 authors; but articles with 25 authors. depending on the country; the author's position counts differently. In Algeria for example; to get a promotion; you have to be among the top 03 authors. To support a doctorate; you have to be the first author. I'll see how to add it into the equation. thank you so much
Excellente remarque : la position de l'auteur. j'ai vu des articles avec 01 auteurs; mais des articles avec 25 auteurs. en fonction des pays; la position de l'auteur compte différemment. En Algerie par exemple ; pour avoir une promotion ; il faut être parmi les 03 premiers auteurs. Pour soutenir un doctorat ; il faut être premier auteur. je vais voir comment l'ajouter dans l'équation. Merci beaucoup
Undoubtedly, the number of publications and the number of citations have the greatest weight, but it would be good to divide them into two groups: publications indexed by Scopus and citations in Scopus and publications indexed by EBSCO, Google Scholar and others, and respectively the number of citations, also participation in research projects.
Regarding research projects: Perhaps as a number of participations in projects, but with different weight - with greater weight are participations in international projects, followed by national projects and university projects.
Dear A. Kettab,
Then only publications and citations remain, also books and book chapters.
Dear A. Kettab,
About the authors, it may be better to divide into two groups: stand-alone publications and books, and co-authored publications. In joint publications, the contribution is not always equal to the ranking, but each of the authors is responsible. In international publications, each author has done the necessary research for his country, but for various reasons is not in the first place. In this sense, it does not seem necessary to emphasize the position of the author.
Dear Rozalina Chuturkova
for the place of the author; I think it's complicated. In an article; all authors have the same legal responsibility. in some countries the boss always puts his name last. in some laboratories; we put the authors in alphabetical order. it's hard to put that into the equation.
Dear D. Kettab,
You are right about the position of the authors, there is no need to complicate the equation.
I wish you success!
about the position of co-authors, of course it is important.
But it depends on the discipline also. In some disciplines it is regular to publish with more than 5 co-authors, and in some others 3 co authors is already a lot...
I would say that for publications with 5 co authors max, either you are first, or all others places have identical weight -which is not true, but it is a kind of approximation. For more than 5 co authors, either you are first, or in the 4 following, or from the 6th place to the last co author, which means 3 sub categories.
And I know this is not perfect, neither validated by all fields...
Which weight to give to this?
1, 0,5 and 0,2 ?...
Has it a sense really?
Knowing that as Prof Kettab said, in many laboratories or programs, the leader can be placed at the end.
About the projects, this is quite impossible to take into account; How is it possible to assess and/or certify your participation in a project? What is the definition of a project? If you publish a paper without being in a project, does it gives less weight to your publication?
I understand the will to create a different scientific indice, with more inputs than just citations, but as a first requirement, it must be easily processed, with open data available.
This is my opinion.
I think this is a new indicator (K-Index) for the evaluation of a teacher and a researcher too.
Dear Prof. A Kettab,
Thanks for discovered this K index. I am agree with you. Really you have given your valuable time to fix this index. I advice you to add something for giving more emphasis on the no.of impact factor publication as first author.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Ornithology
- birds
- Scopus