Calibrated Fair Measures of Measure: Indices to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Research Output

  title={Calibrated Fair Measures of Measure: Indices to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Research Output},
  author={Abdel Nasser Tawfik},
Do existing ways of measuring scientific quality reflect the disadvantages of not being part of giant collaborations? How could possible discrimination be avoided? We propose indices defined for each discipline (subfield) and which count the plausible contributions added up by collaborators, while maintaining the spirit of interdependency. Based on the growing debate about defining potential biases and detecting unethical behavior, a standardized method to measure contributions of the… 

Figures from this paper



Measures for measures

Comparing commonly used measures of author quality, the mean number of citations per paper emerges as a better indicator than the more complex Hirsch index; a third method, the number of papers published per year, measures industry rather than ability.

An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship

I propose the index $$\hbar$$ (“hbar”), defined as the number of papers of an individual that have citation count larger than or equal to the $$\hbar$$ of all coauthors of each paper, as a useful

Citations: rankings weigh against developing nations

In formulating their criteria, publications from institutes and by individuals in local and national journals should also be taken into account, and the total number of publications in national journals not counted by the ESI would then be considered and weighted in order to arrive at a more appropriate index.

How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science

Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science, and the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.

Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups

Characteristics of the statistical correlation between the Hirsch (h-) index and several standard bibliometric indicators are presented, as well as with the results of peer review judgment, which show that the h-index and the bibliometry ‘crown indicator’ both relate in a quite comparable way with peer judgments.

The mismeasurement of science

The demise of the lone author

The bottom line for both is that — mathematicians excepted — the 'lone' author on a Nature manuscript is virtually a thing of the past.

Studies in scientific collaboration

This essay investigates a number of the predictions of the theoretical view of scientific collaboration as a response to the professionalization of science: (1) that collaboration is most typically