Citation, bad or good, isn’t the time to bring up another metrics system?

ebrahimzadeh, mohammad ali Citation, bad or good, isn’t the time to bring up another metrics system? Tabari Biomedical Student Research Journal.

[img] Text
mazu-tbsrj-v1n2p1-en.pdf

Download (198kB)

Abstract

About 15 years ago, Hirsh was introduced his important index as h-index. Soon after other indicators such as Gindex and M-index were introduced. They became so popular rapidly and now they are standard indicators for scientometrics for evaluation and ranking researchers, research centers, departments, schools, universities and even countries. Soon after, interest to social media such as twitter and facebook and Altmetric indicator such as K (Kardashian) index was occurred. Common point in all of these indexes is citation. Keeping in mind that this indicator can be manipulated easily. Apart from negative and positive citation, there are some other forms of citations: self citation, citation by colleagues and citation by other researcher or social media. Self citation can be based on reason and evidence and in continuation of the work of researcher or can be groundless. The number of self citation is especially high for US, Middle East countries such as China, India, Iran; UK, France, Italy and Australia (www.scimagojr.com). These two parts should be separate precisely. Citation by colleagues can be doubtful, a kind of helping out! On the other hand, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), an independent global health research center at the University of Washington, is another problem. IHME serves as the coordinating center for the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. Many hot papers, highly cited papers and top papers are selected based on citations to these articles. These papers are suspicious. Many persons are in their author list, more than hundreds. No definite, clear and distinctive roles exist for many of them. There is about 900 such a papers. Countries such as Australia, UK, India, Mexico, Canada, China and recently Iran have the most participation (http://www.healthdata.org/gbd/call-forcollaborators). Executive managers of Clarivate analytics, Elsevier (Scopus) and Google scholar should be aware of results of this neglect in their metric systems. Of course Clarivate analytics did something recently but Scopus and Google scholar consider them for calculation of H-index and other metric indicators. Of course, the citation of first author and corresponding author are defendable. I think, this is the time to bring up another metrics system. Citation should have a heavy weight rival!.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: Q Science > Q Science (General)
Depositing User: Unnamed user with email eprints@mazums.ac.ir
Date Deposited: 03 Jul 2019 09:12
Last Modified: 03 Jul 2019 09:12
URI: http://eprints.mazums.ac.ir/id/eprint/4644

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item