一个修正的h指数对学术领导能力的决定:一个文献研究

Aamir Jalal Al-Mosawi
{"title":"一个修正的h指数对学术领导能力的决定:一个文献研究","authors":"Aamir Jalal Al-Mosawi","doi":"10.31829/2641-7456/ahs2020-4(1)-119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Academic medical leadership is closely related to scientific research productivity and publication. A researcher’s h-index is based on his/her most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other’s publications. It is generally determined by knowing the number of articles written by the author indexed in citation databases. An H-index will be 10 if 10 articles have received at least 10 citations. Ignoring the order and authorship role of an individual researcher may lead to rather a misleading H-index that is totally not relevant to academic leadership determination. The publishing of research conducted by a large collaborative research group made many collaborators with minor role in research creation, development and leadership obtain a high misleading H-index and is not correlated with their academic and research prowess. The use of methods that increase the reliability of the H-index has been increasingly recommended. The aim of this paper is to describe the determination of a more accurate, non-misleading H-index that is more relevant to academic leadership determination. \nMaterials and Methods: An author was found to have an extremely misleading H-index of 28 at Google Scholar citation that is not relevant to academic leadership deterioration. The papers’ citations in his profile were assessed and a corrected rational non-misleading H-index was determined. \nResults: The author name was not among the first five authors for the first 20 papers listed by Google Scholar Citation, and in most of these papers, his name was not present among the first ten authors. The author name appears among the first three authors in 9 papers (Number 27, 28,29, 36, 41, 43, 45, 47, 50) as listed by Google Scholar Citation. These papers has 34, 30, 21, 10, 5, 5,4,4,3 citations respectively. The author real H-index is 5; because he has at least 5 papers having five citations (Number 27, 28, 29, 36, 41, 43). \nConclusion: The corrected H-index should be calculated while considering the papers really authored by an individual author who should be among the first three authors. Many authors who join a large collaborative research group will generally have a minor contribution to research development and publication, but they may achieve a rather misleading high H-index. It is recommended that Google Scholar Citation adopt the corrected H-index to guarantee the reliability and usefulness of the H-index.","PeriodicalId":127914,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Health Science","volume":"120 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Corrected H-Index for Academic Leadership Determination: A Bibliographic Research\",\"authors\":\"Aamir Jalal Al-Mosawi\",\"doi\":\"10.31829/2641-7456/ahs2020-4(1)-119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Academic medical leadership is closely related to scientific research productivity and publication. A researcher’s h-index is based on his/her most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other’s publications. It is generally determined by knowing the number of articles written by the author indexed in citation databases. An H-index will be 10 if 10 articles have received at least 10 citations. Ignoring the order and authorship role of an individual researcher may lead to rather a misleading H-index that is totally not relevant to academic leadership determination. The publishing of research conducted by a large collaborative research group made many collaborators with minor role in research creation, development and leadership obtain a high misleading H-index and is not correlated with their academic and research prowess. The use of methods that increase the reliability of the H-index has been increasingly recommended. The aim of this paper is to describe the determination of a more accurate, non-misleading H-index that is more relevant to academic leadership determination. \\nMaterials and Methods: An author was found to have an extremely misleading H-index of 28 at Google Scholar citation that is not relevant to academic leadership deterioration. The papers’ citations in his profile were assessed and a corrected rational non-misleading H-index was determined. \\nResults: The author name was not among the first five authors for the first 20 papers listed by Google Scholar Citation, and in most of these papers, his name was not present among the first ten authors. The author name appears among the first three authors in 9 papers (Number 27, 28,29, 36, 41, 43, 45, 47, 50) as listed by Google Scholar Citation. These papers has 34, 30, 21, 10, 5, 5,4,4,3 citations respectively. The author real H-index is 5; because he has at least 5 papers having five citations (Number 27, 28, 29, 36, 41, 43). \\nConclusion: The corrected H-index should be calculated while considering the papers really authored by an individual author who should be among the first three authors. Many authors who join a large collaborative research group will generally have a minor contribution to research development and publication, but they may achieve a rather misleading high H-index. It is recommended that Google Scholar Citation adopt the corrected H-index to guarantee the reliability and usefulness of the H-index.\",\"PeriodicalId\":127914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Health Science\",\"volume\":\"120 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Health Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31829/2641-7456/ahs2020-4(1)-119\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Health Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31829/2641-7456/ahs2020-4(1)-119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:医学学术领导地位与科研生产力和科研成果发表密切相关。研究人员的h指数是基于他/她被引用最多的论文和他/她在其他出版物中被引用的次数。通常通过了解作者在引文数据库中被索引的文章数量来确定。如果10篇文章被引用10次以上,则h指数为10。忽略单个研究者的顺序和作者角色可能会导致相当误导的h指数,这与学术领导的确定完全无关。由大型合作研究小组进行的研究成果的发表,使许多在研究创造、发展和领导方面发挥次要作用的合作者获得了高误导性的h指数,并且与他们的学术和研究实力无关。越来越多的人推荐使用提高h指数可靠性的方法。本文的目的是描述一个更准确的,非误导性的h指数,更相关的学术领导的确定。材料与方法:某作者在Google Scholar引文中被发现h指数为28,与学术领导能力下降无关,极具误导性。对其个人资料中的论文引用进行了评估,并确定了修正后的合理非误导性h指数。结果:在Google Scholar Citation收录的前20篇论文中,作者姓名均未出现在前5位作者中,且在大部分论文中,其姓名均未出现在前10位作者中。作者姓名出现在Google Scholar Citation列出的9篇论文(编号27、28、29、36、41、43、45、47、50)的前三位作者中。这些论文分别被引用34次、30次、21次、10次、5次、5次、4次、4次、3次。作者实际h指数为5;因为他至少有5篇论文被引用了5次(第27、28、29、36、41、43篇)。结论:在计算修正后的h指数时,应考虑真正由某一作者撰写的论文,该作者应在前三名。许多加入大型合作研究小组的作者通常对研究开发和发表的贡献不大,但他们可能会获得相当具有误导性的高h指数。建议Google Scholar Citation采用修正后的H-index,以保证H-index的可靠性和有用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Corrected H-Index for Academic Leadership Determination: A Bibliographic Research
Background: Academic medical leadership is closely related to scientific research productivity and publication. A researcher’s h-index is based on his/her most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other’s publications. It is generally determined by knowing the number of articles written by the author indexed in citation databases. An H-index will be 10 if 10 articles have received at least 10 citations. Ignoring the order and authorship role of an individual researcher may lead to rather a misleading H-index that is totally not relevant to academic leadership determination. The publishing of research conducted by a large collaborative research group made many collaborators with minor role in research creation, development and leadership obtain a high misleading H-index and is not correlated with their academic and research prowess. The use of methods that increase the reliability of the H-index has been increasingly recommended. The aim of this paper is to describe the determination of a more accurate, non-misleading H-index that is more relevant to academic leadership determination. Materials and Methods: An author was found to have an extremely misleading H-index of 28 at Google Scholar citation that is not relevant to academic leadership deterioration. The papers’ citations in his profile were assessed and a corrected rational non-misleading H-index was determined. Results: The author name was not among the first five authors for the first 20 papers listed by Google Scholar Citation, and in most of these papers, his name was not present among the first ten authors. The author name appears among the first three authors in 9 papers (Number 27, 28,29, 36, 41, 43, 45, 47, 50) as listed by Google Scholar Citation. These papers has 34, 30, 21, 10, 5, 5,4,4,3 citations respectively. The author real H-index is 5; because he has at least 5 papers having five citations (Number 27, 28, 29, 36, 41, 43). Conclusion: The corrected H-index should be calculated while considering the papers really authored by an individual author who should be among the first three authors. Many authors who join a large collaborative research group will generally have a minor contribution to research development and publication, but they may achieve a rather misleading high H-index. It is recommended that Google Scholar Citation adopt the corrected H-index to guarantee the reliability and usefulness of the H-index.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misoprostol plus Isosorbide Mononitrate versus Misoprostol for Termination of Anembryonic Pregnancy COVID-19 Pandemic and Blood Donation Services: Perspective of Low-Resource Country 10.31829/2641-7456/ahs2021-5(1)-013 Look at the COVID-19 Pandemic with an Open Mind Mercy Not Sacrifice: Lessons from Christianity for COVID-19 Pandemic Potential Abuse of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1