A bibliometric analysis of academic publication and NIH funding

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 318-324

  Yang, Jiansheng ^a,b   Vannier, Michael W ^c   Wang, Fang ^d   Deng, Yan ^d   Ou, Fengrong ^d   Bennett, James ^a   Liu, Yang ^d   Wang, Ge ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PEKING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^d CHINA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

A Index; Bibliometric analysis; Citation analysis; H Index; Race ethnicity; Research funding

Indexed keywords

PRODUCTIVITY; RESEARCH;

A-INDEX; BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS; CITATION ANALYSIS; H INDICES; RACE/ETHNICITY; RESEARCH FUNDING;

EDUCATION;

EID: 84873817857     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.006     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abbasi A., Altmann J., Hossain L. Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5(4):594-607.
2. Anonymous Who is accountable?. Nature 2007, 450(7166):1.
3. Baldock C., Ma R., Orton C.G. Point/counterpoint. The h index is the best measure of a scientist's research productivity. Medical Physics 2009, 36(4):1043-1045.
4. Ball P. Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature 2005, 436(7053):900.
5. Ball P. Achievement index climbs the ranks. Nature 2007, 448(7155):737.
6. Ball P. A longer paper gathers more citations. Nature 2008, 455(7211):274-275.
7. Bellis N.D. Bibliometrics and citation analysis - from the science citation index to cybermetrics 2009, Scarecrow Press, Plymouth, UK.
8. Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 2011, 45:199-245.
9. Bornmann L., Daniel H.D. The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance?. EMBO Reports 2009, 10(1):2-6.
10. Campbell P. Policy on papers' contributors. Nature 1999, 399(6735):393.
11. Collins F.S., Tabak L.A. Race disparity in grants: Oversight at home response. Science 2011, 334(6058).
12. Dodson M.V. Citation analysis: Maintenance of h-index and use of e-index. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2009, 387(4):625-626.
13. Egghe L., Guns R., Rousseau R. Measuring co-authors' contribution to an article's visibility. Scientometrics 2012.
14. Engqvist L., Frommen J.G. The h-index and self-citations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2008, 23(5):250-252.
15. Erickson H.P. Race disparity in grants: Check the citations. Science 2011, 334(6058):899.
16. Foulkes W., Neylon N. Redefining authorship. Relative contribution should be given after each author's name. BMJ 1996, 312(7043):1423.
17. Ginther D.K., Schaffer W.T., Schnell J., Masimore B., Liu F.Y., Haak L.L., et al. Race disparity in grants: Empirical solutions vital response. Science 2011, 334(6058):U154-U899.
18. Ginther D.K., Schaffer W.T., Haak L.L., Kington R. Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science 2011, 333(6045):1015-1019.
19. Greene M. The demise of the lone author. Nature 2007, 450(7173):1165.
20. Hagen N.T. Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE 2008, 3(12):e4021.
21. Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2005, 102(46):16569-16572.
22. Hirsch J.E. Does the H index have predictive power?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2007, 104(49):19193-19198.
23. http://grants.nih.gov/training/K_Awards_Evaluation_FinalReport_20110901.pdf.
24. http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm.
25. http://sub3.webofknowledge.com/.
26. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/journal_citation_reports.
27. Jeang K.T. Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and retrovirology: Is it time to individualize citation metrics?. Retrovirology 2007, 4:42.
28. Kaiser J. NIH uncovers racial disparity in grant awards. Science 2011, 333(6045):925-926.
29. Kelly C.D., Jennions M.D. H-index: Age and sex make it unreliable. Nature 2007, 449(7161):403.
30. Kinney A.L. National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2007, 104(46):17943-17947.
31. Lehmann S., Jackson A.D., Lautrup B.E. Measures for measures. Nature 2006, 444(7122):1003-1004.
32. Liu X.Z., Fang H. Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(4):557-565.
33. Mishra D.C. Citations: Rankings weigh against developing nations. Nature 2008, 451(7176):244.
34. Pilc A. The use of citation indicators to identify and support high-quality research in Poland. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis 2008, 56(6):381-384.
35. Radicchi F., Fortunato S., Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2008, 105(45):17268-17272.
36. Rehn, C., Kronman, U., & Wadskog, D. (2007). Bibliometric indicators - definitions and usage at Karolinska Institutet Stickholm, Sweden, Karolinska Institutet University Library.
37. Sebire N.J. H-index and impact factors: Assessing the clinical impact of researchers and specialist journals. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008, 32(7):843-845.
38. Sherley J.L. Race disparity in grants: Oversight at home. Science 2011, 334(6058).
39. Tabak L.A., Collins F.S. Weaving a richer tapestry in biomedical science. Science 2011, 333(6045):940-941.
40. Todd P.A., Ladle R.J. Citations: Poor practices by authors reduce their value. Nature 2008, 451(7176):244.
41. Vinkler P. The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators 2010, Chandos Publishing, Oxford, UK.
42. Voss J.L. Race disparity in grants: Empirical solutions vital. Science 2011, 334(6058):899.
43. Wang G., Yang J.S. Axiomatic quantification of co-authors' relative contributions 2010, arXiv:1003.3362v1001 [stat.AP].
44. Wendl M.C. H-index: However ranked, citations need context. Nature 2007, 449(7161):403.
45. Williamson J.R. My h-index turns 40: My midlife crisis of impact. ACS Chemical Biology 2009, 4(5):311-313.
46. Zhang C.T. A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports 2009, 10(5):416-417.