Prolificacy and visibility versus reputation in the hard sciences. MONTAZERIAN, Maziar; ZANOTTO, Edgar Dutra; ECKERT, Hellmut.
Abstract: Some authors (including ourselves) have argued that the research quality of an individual or group has to be evaluated by peer review based on the originality, strength, reproducibility, and relevance of their publications. As a result, a reputation is built up by the community. In this article, we dwell on complementary indicators of a scientist performance - prolificacy and visibility - by critically analyzing a plethora of scientometric data for the hard sciences. Our investigation corroborates the notion that the H-indexes (which correlate to both prolificacy and visibility) of the most prolific and most cited researchers strongly depend on the field of study and increase with the total number of publications, N. Here we use the MZE-index (defined in a previous article) to distinguish the H-indexes of authors that stand at, above or below the average of their field for any number of publications. In addition, we propose a field normalization factor (FNF) which allows one to scale the H-indexes of any author or group belonging to different research fields. While neither the MZE nor FNF-normalized H indices can guarantee quality or reputation, they show how visible by their community a researcher, research group, or institution is. We also explore a potential correlation of prolificacy and visibility with scientific reputation by comparing the performances of the most cited scientists with those of the winners of important awards in five macro-areas of the hard sciences. This comparison reveals strongly field-dependent features, suggesting that citation-based parameters can be useful, complementary scientometric evaluators, but should not be confused with quality.
Scientometrics
v. 123, n. 1, p. 207-221 - Ano: 2020
Fator de Impacto: 2,770
@article={002994287,author = {MONTAZERIAN, Maziar; ZANOTTO, Edgar Dutra; ECKERT, Hellmut.},title={Prolificacy and visibility versus reputation in the hard sciences},journal={Scientometrics},note={v. 123, n. 1, p. 207-221},year={2020}}
We use cookies on this site for a better browsing experience. By accessing the website, you agree to our policy on the use of cookies. More information about our Privacy Policy.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Abstract: Some authors (including ourselves) have argued that the research quality of an individual or group has to be evaluated by peer review based on the originality, strength, reproducibility, and relevance of their publications. As a result, a reputation is built up by the community. In this article, we dwell on complementary indicators of a scientist performance - prolificacy and visibility - by critically analyzing a plethora of scientometric data for the hard sciences. Our investigation corroborates the notion that the H-indexes (which correlate to both prolificacy and visibility) of the most prolific and most cited researchers strongly depend on the field of study and increase with the total number of publications, N. Here we use the MZE-index (defined in a previous article) to distinguish the H-indexes of authors that stand at, above or below the average of their field for any number of publications. In addition, we propose a field normalization factor (FNF) which allows one to scale the H-indexes of any author or group belonging to different research fields. While neither the MZE nor FNF-normalized H indices can guarantee quality or reputation, they show how visible by their community a researcher, research group, or institution is. We also explore a potential correlation of prolificacy and visibility with scientific reputation by comparing the performances of the most cited scientists with those of the winners of important awards in five macro-areas of the hard sciences. This comparison reveals strongly field-dependent features, suggesting that citation-based parameters can be useful, complementary scientometric evaluators, but should not be confused with quality.
@article={002994287,author = {MONTAZERIAN, Maziar; ZANOTTO, Edgar Dutra; ECKERT, Hellmut.},title={Prolificacy and visibility versus reputation in the hard sciences},journal={Scientometrics},note={v. 123, n. 1, p. 207-221},year={2020}}