Comparing scientific performance among equals

Scientometrics

Volumn 101, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 1731-1745

  Sorzano, C O S ^a,b   Vargas, J ^a   Caffarena Fernandez G ^b   Iriarte, A ^b  

^a CENTRO NACIONAL DE BIOTECNOLOGÍA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD SAN PABLO CEU   (Spain)

Author keywords

Control groups; Relative measurements; Scientific performance

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939874330     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1368-6     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics,3(4), 273–289.
2. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index?A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59, 830–837.
3. Coleman, B. J., Bolumole, Y. A., & Frankel, R. (2012). Benchmarking individual publication productivity in logistics. Transportation Journal,51(2), 164–196.
4. El Emam, K., Arbuckle, L., Jonker, E., & Anderson, K. (2012). Two h-index benchmarks for evaluating the publication performance of medical informatics researchers. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(5). doi: 10.2196/jmir.2177.
5. Geoffrion, A. M., Dyer, J. S., & Feinberg, A. (1972). An interactive approach for multi-criterion optimization, with an application to the operation of an academic department. Management Science,19, 357–368.
6. Glänzel, W. (2006). On the Opportunities and Limitations of the H-index. Science Focus,1(1), 10–11.
7. Harzing, A. (2010). The publish or perish book. Melbourne, Australia: Tarma Software Research.
8. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,102, 16569–16580.
9. Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharromán, C. (2007). Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics,73(3), 303–320.
10. Imperial, J., & Rodríguez-Navarro, A. (2007). Usefulness of Hirsch’s h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain. Scientometrics,71(2), 271–282.
11. Köksalan, M. M., & Sagala, P. N. S. (1995). Interactive approaches for discrete alternative multiple criteria decision making with monotone utility functions. Management Science,41, 1158–1171.
12. Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2008). A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific performance. Scientometrics,76, 369–390.
13. Lundberg, J. (2007). Lifting the crown-citation z-score. Journal of Informetrics,1, 145–154.
14. Moed, H. F., Debrun R. E., & Vanlleuwen T. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance-database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33, 381–422.
15. Moed, H. F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis, 57(1), 13–18.
16. Panaretos, J., & Malesios, C. (2009). Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices. Scientometrics, 81(3), 635–670.
17. Podlubny, I. (2005). Comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science. Scientometrics,64(1), 95–99.
18. Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,45, 17268–17272.
19. Saaty, T. (1988). What is the Analytic hierarchy process? Mathematical models for Decision Support,48, 109–121.
20. Schulze, M. (2003). A new monotonic and clone-independent single winner election method. Voting Matters,17, 9–19.
21. Tideman, T. N. (1987). Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules. Social Choice and Welfare,4, 185–206.