Good news for the people who love bad news: An analysis of the funding of the top 1% most highly cited ecologists

Oikos

Volumn 121, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1005-1008

  Lortie, Christopher J ^a   Aarssen, Lonnie ^b   Parker, John N ^c   Allesina, Stefano ^d  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; DATA SET; ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; RESEARCH WORK; VISIBILITY;

CANADA;

EID: 84862758110     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20109.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Aarssen L. W. and Lortie C. J. 2010. Ideas for judging merit in manuscripts and authors. - Ideas Ecol. Evol. 3: 28-34.
2. Adam D. 2002. The counting house. - Nature 415: 726-729.
3. Aksnes D. W. and Rip A. 2009. Researchers' perceptions of citations. - Res. Policy 38: 895-905.
4. Ball P. 2005. Index aims for fair rankings of scientists. - Nature 436: 900.
5. Braun T. et al. 2006. A Hirsch-type index for journals. - Scientometrics 69: 169-173.
6. Egghe L. 2006. Theory and practise of the g-index. - Scientometrics 69: 131-152.
7. Goose M. 1695. Mother goose rhymes. - In: Bartley W. W. (ed.), The retreat to commitment. Open Court Publishing Company, p. 35.
8. Hirsch J. E. 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. - Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102: 16569-16572.
9. Jin B. et al. 2007. The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. - Chin. Sci. Bull. 52: 855-863.
10. Kokko H. and Sutherland W. J. 1999. What do impact factors tell us? - Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 382-384.
11. Kosmulski M. 2011. Successful papers: a new idea in evaluation of scientific output. - J. Infometrics 5: 481-485.
12. Kotiaho J. S. 1999. Unfamiliar citations breed mistakes. - Nature 400: 307.
13. Krell F. T. 2002. Why impact factors don't work for taxonomy. - Nature 415: 957.
14. Lawrence P. A. 2007. The mismeasurement of science. - Curr. Biol. 17: R583-R585.
15. Leimu R. and Koricheva J. 2005a. Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? - Bioscience 55: 438-443.
16. Leimu R. and Koricheva J. 2005b. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? - Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 28-32.
17. Leimu R. et al. 2008. Does it pay to have a bigwig as a co-author? - Front. Ecol. Environ. 6: 410-411.
18. Lortie C. J. 2009. A global comment on scientific publications, productivity, people and beer. - Scientometrics 84: 539-541.
19. Merton R. K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. - Science 159: 56-63.
20. Monastersky R. 2005. The number that's devouring science. - The chronicle of higher education. 10: 1-13.
21. Parker J. N. et al. 2010. Characterizing a scientific elite: the social characteristics of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. - Scientometrics 85: 129-143.
22. Supp R. and White E. P. 2010. Measures of journal quality should separate reviews from original research. - Ideas Ecol. Evol. 3: 16-19.
23. Van Raan A. F. J. 1999. Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities. - Scientometrics 45: 417-423.
24. Waltman L. et al. 2011. Globalisation of science in kilometres. - J. Infometrics 5: 574-582.
25. Wardle D. A. 2010. Do 'Faculty of 1000' (F1000) ratings of ecological publications serve as reasonable predictors of their future impact? - Ideas Ecol. Evol. 3: 11-15.