Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines

  title={Multiple Citation Indicators and Their Composite across Scientific Disciplines},
  author={John P. A. Ioannidis and Richard Klavans and Kevin W. Boyack},
  journal={PLoS Biology},
Many fields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics. Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or single, first, or last author). We demonstrate the correlation patterns between these indicators across 84,116 scientists (those among… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation
A large-scale study of scientometric measures, analyzing millions of articles and hundreds of millions of citations across four scientific fields and two data platforms, finds that the correlation of the h-index with awards that indicate recognition by the scientific community has substantially declined.
Author Database of Standardized Citation Indicators Derived from Scopus Lacks Transparency and Suggests a False Precision
A critical discussion is presented for the Author Metrics Database (AMD) created by Ioannides et al. (2016, 2020) containing citation-based indicators for 165,000 authors publishing in journals
Field Dependence of Citation Data Validation of Premier Peer-Review Decisions in India
  • G. Prathap
  • Environmental Science
    Current Science
  • 2020
Research evaluation based on citation data identifies excellence using quantity and quality proxies as the main orthogonal dimensions. Citation data are readily available from aggregators such as the
Percentage-Based Author Contribution Index. A universal, measure of author contribution to scientific articles
The proposed Author Contribution Index (ACI) is based on contribution percentages provided by the authors, preferably at the time of submission, and can be used for a number of purposes, including comparing the contributions of different authors, describing the contribution profile of a researcher or analysing how contribution changes through time.
Overall and COVID-19-specific citation impact of highly visible COVID-19 media experts: bibliometric analysis
There is a worrisome disconnect between COVID-19 claimed media expertise and scholarship and the representation of women among such experts is examined.
Measuring an individual researcher’s impact: new directions and challenges
An overview and evaluation of the new standardised citation metric as it applies to mental health research is provided, including a summary of its findings for psychiatry and psychology, including clustering in certain countries and institutions, and some implications for mental healthResearch are outlined.
Massive covidization of research citations and the citation elite
Massive scientific productivity accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the citation impact of COVID-19 publications relative to all scientific work published in 2020-2021 and assessed the
Analyzing the influence of prolific collaborations on authors productivity and visibility
This work analyzes how the most prolific collaboration tie of an established researcher influences their productivity and visibility metrics when their works also coauthored by their prolific collaborators are not considered.
Winners and runners-up alike?—a comparison between awardees and special mention recipients of the most reputable science award in Colombia via a composite citation indicator
This study examines the bibliometric features of individual researcher profiles of those participants who received a special mention in Colombia's most prestigious prize in the sciences: the Alejandro Ángel Escobar Prize (AAEP).
Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles
The Author Contribution Index (ACI) is an easy to apply, universally comparable and fair metric to measure and report co-authors contribution in the scientific literature and has the potential to contribute to more transparency in the science literature.


Measuring Co-Authorship and Networking-Adjusted Scientific Impact
Metrics are needed to measure the networking intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns of co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals to offer incentives for more accountable co-Authorship behaviour in published articles.
How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox?
These new indicators for evaluating journals available than the traditional Impact Factor, Cited Half-life, and Immediacy Index of the ISI are compared with one another and with the older ones.
Analysis of bibliometric indicators for individual scholars in a large data set
This work analyzes the scientific profile of more than 30,000 researchers, and finds that the h-index of a scientist is strongly correlated with the number of citations that she/he has received so that theNumber of citations can be effectively be used as a proxy of theh-index.
The Distribution of the Asymptotic Number of Citations to Sets of Publications by a Researcher or from an Academic Department Are Consistent with a Discrete Lognormal Model
This work argues that most existing bibliometric indicators are inconsistent, biased, and, worst of all, susceptible to manipulation, and pursues a principled approach to the development of an indicator to quantify the scientific impact of both individual researchers and research institutions grounded on the functional form of the distribution of the asymptotic number of citations.
A list of highly influential biomedical researchers, 1996–2011
A list of highly influential biomedical researchers based on Scopus citation data from the period 1996‐2011 is generated, with information on the profile of these most influential authors, including the most common Medical Subject Heading terms in their articles.
Credit where credit’s due: accounting for co-authorship in citation counts
  • R. Tol
  • Economics
  • 2011
Pareto weights are based on the respective citation records of the co-authors and can deviate up to a quarter in either direction (for reasons that are intuitive).
Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices
Current research performance assessment criteria contribute to some extent to author inflation per publication. Among various indicators for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authors,
Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?
This work has obtained the rank plots of h and h I for four Brazilian scientific communities and found the h I index rank plots collapse into a single curve allowing comparison among different research areas.
Effectiveness of Journal Ranking Schemes as a Tool for Locating Information
This work systematically evaluates the effectiveness of journals, through the work of editors and reviewers, at evaluating unpublished research, and develops a model for the asymptotic number of citations accrued by papers published in a journal that closely matches the data.
A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health in Web of Science and Google Scholar
Author-level bibliometric indicators are becoming a standard tool in research assessment. It is important to investigate what these indicators actually measure to assess their appropriateness in