4 ms·

I think you may be interested in the "h-index" and related metrics. http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~palsberg/h-number.html http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~palsberg/h-number.ht

by fdr 12y ago

I think you may be interested in the "h-index" and related metrics. http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~palsberg/h-number.html http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~palsberg/h-number.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index http://researchguides.uic.edu/hindex http://researchguides.uic.edu/hindex

shazeline 12y ago
I wrote a quick script to generate a list similar to (but not as deep or well-annotated as) Prof Palsberg's. https://gist.github.com/shazeline/d9881d06be31a59a93d3 https://gist.github.com/shazeline/d9881d06be31a59a93d3 It's a BFS for Google Scholar seeded with Herbert Simon.
sytelus 12y ago
The h-index seems like much weaker metric than PageRank. For instance, consider 10 professors you decides to game this. They will create 100 fake papers and cite each other in all. Now suddenly they would have h-index of 100! PageRank is recursive metric in graph. In above case, if above 10 professors don't have any other links pointing to them, they don't get ranked higher. PageRank was designed to eliminate scenarios like above. It's amusing that Google Scholar doesn't use PageRank prominently instead of these weaker metrics.
- avar 12y ago
  Aren't there areas of scientific research where people doing genuinely valuable research don't get cited at all except within a closed community? I'd imagine e.g. that a handful of researchers all studying some obscure animal species would have a high h-index but a very low PageRank.
- eegilbert 12y ago
  An experiment that did just that a few years ago: "Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting" by Delgado Lopez-Cozar, et al. http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638 http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638 [edit: grammar]
- Anon84 12y ago
  You can even do something similar at the city level and see which city is the most influential in Science (or physics in this case): http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130410/srep01640/full/srep01640.html http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130410/srep01640/full/srep01...
- warrenmar 12y ago
  "weaker" metrics can be useful, because you can understand it better. If I tell you a PageRank of an author is 3.452. That means nothing to me. If I tell you somebody's h-index is 18. That means they published 18 papers that got 18 citations each. The h-index is useful for comparing people in the same field. There is also a metric for journals called impact factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

by fdr 12y ago

shazeline 12y ago

I wrote a quick script to generate a list similar to (but not as deep or well-annotated as) Prof Palsberg's. https://gist.github.com/shazeline/d9881d06be31a59a93d3 https://gist.github.com/shazeline/d9881d06be31a59a93d3 It's a BFS for Google Scholar seeded with Herbert Simon.

sytelus 12y ago

The h-index seems like much weaker metric than PageRank. For instance, consider 10 professors you decides to game this. They will create 100 fake papers and cite each other in all. Now suddenly they would have h-index of 100! PageRank is recursive metric in graph. In above case, if above 10 professors don't have any other links pointing to them, they don't get ranked higher. PageRank was designed to eliminate scenarios like above. It's amusing that Google Scholar doesn't use PageRank prominently instead of these weaker metrics.

avar 12y ago
Aren't there areas of scientific research where people doing genuinely valuable research don't get cited at all except within a closed community? I'd imagine e.g. that a handful of researchers all studying some obscure animal species would have a high h-index but a very low PageRank.
eegilbert 12y ago
An experiment that did just that a few years ago: "Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting" by Delgado Lopez-Cozar, et al. http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638 http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638 [edit: grammar]
Anon84 12y ago
You can even do something similar at the city level and see which city is the most influential in Science (or physics in this case): http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130410/srep01640/full/srep01640.html http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130410/srep01640/full/srep01...
warrenmar 12y ago
"weaker" metrics can be useful, because you can understand it better. If I tell you a PageRank of an author is 3.452. That means nothing to me. If I tell you somebody's h-index is 18. That means they published 18 papers that got 18 citations each. The h-index is useful for comparing people in the same field. There is also a metric for journals called impact factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor