TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Google Scholar Metrics for Publications

25 点作者 gsivil大约 13 年前

8 条评论

noelwelsh大约 13 年前
It's interesting to note that the 5th highest ranked publication is arXiv. For those who aren't familiar with it, arxiv.org is an open-access repository of academic papers, mostly in quantitative science. In my field (computer science) it is standard practice to deposit a copy of one's papers in arxiv before submitting them for publication, and arxiv is the place to find the latest research.<p>There is currently a lot of hand-wringing in academia about open access publications. Everyone wants it, and it is trivial to switch a field to it (machine learning has done so, for the most part), but it requires the leaders in the field to lead the change and they are normally too invested in the status quo. What the high ranking of arxiv suggests to me is that while people maintain lip service to the idea that the (mostly closed) publications are important and the maintain the definite version of a publication, the reality is that no-one gives a damn and goes to arxiv when they want to read something.
评论 #3797175 未加载
评论 #3798926 未加载
lyso大约 13 年前
So it looks like with this method, if a journal publishes more papers, this will give it more of a chance to boost its h5-index? This probably accounts for the high level of arXiv, and PLoS One beating out PLoS Biol.<p>One problem with impact factors is the way that a few articles can account for the majority of citations. For instance, a bioinformatics method that is widely used could attract thousands of citations, boosting the impact factor of the journal by a few points. This method doesn't solve this, as it expressly focuses on the top n articles and ignores the impact of the remainder. For instance, PLoS One's score of 100 is because the top 100 articles got 100 citations - it says nothing about the distribution of the rest.
评论 #3797044 未加载
lawlesst大约 13 年前
It's nice to see that Google is adding features to Scholar. There's concern in the library community that it will go away since its not a revenue producing service.<p>Incidentally, Microsoft Academic Search is pretty impressive so far. They've added many features. They also have an API that is pretty easy to use, which Scholar doesn't.<p><a href="http://academic.research.microsoft.com/" rel="nofollow">http://academic.research.microsoft.com/</a>
评论 #3797820 未加载
评论 #3798056 未加载
molbioguy大约 13 年前
There are definitely things that skew the index that might not necessarily reflect the quality of the journal. For example, the 20th ranked journal by H-5 index is Nucleic Acids Research (NAR). However, when you look at the H-index articles for NAR, you see that they are dominated by articles announcing or simply cataloging an important database. These get cited very extensively, becuase anytime you use a database you need to cite it, but they aren't what I would call high impact research articles. NAR just happens to be a journal that has a special annual Database issue where bioinformaticists can drop an article describing their useful database.<p>EDIT: It would be fair to say that since a database is so widely cited it is important. So maybe the index is more robust than I originally considered. But something still seems skewed here.
danialtz大约 13 年前
Rob J Hyndman has a very nice review on Google scholar metrics [1]. Here is his ending quote:<p><pre><code> In sum­mary, the h5-index is sim­ple to under­stand, hard to manip­u­late, and pro­vides a rea­son­able if crude mea­sure of the respect accorded to a jour­nal by schol­ars within its field. While jour­nal met­rics are no guar­an­tee of the qual­ity of a jour­nal, if they are going to be used we should use the best avail­able, and Google’s h5-index is a big improve­ment on the ISI impact factor. </code></pre> [1] <a href="http://robjhyndman.com/researchtips/google-scholar-metrics/" rel="nofollow">http://robjhyndman.com/researchtips/google-scholar-metrics/</a>
throwaway1979大约 13 年前
The only CS conference/journal I saw on the list was "IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR". That's not the top CS venue I know of.
评论 #3797618 未加载
评论 #3797579 未加载
评论 #3798581 未加载
aaronsw大约 13 年前
Is there any reason to believe this h-index method of ranking is a good idea? Why not use PageRank?
评论 #3800026 未加载
fatjokes大约 13 年前
Interesting... how is CVPR the only computer science-related publication in the top 100?