IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v114y2018i2d10.1007_s11192-017-2526-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are you in top 1% (1‰)?

Author

Listed:
  • Marek Kosmulski

    (Lublin University of Technology)

Abstract

A new simple bibliometric indicator is based on the number of highly cited papers (as defined by WoS®). It can be used to assess individuals, journals and universities. Unlike most other citation-based-indicators it equalizes the chances of young scientists (vs. their more experienced colleagues) and of scientists working in less-popular disciplines. The ranking of scientists based on the new indicator is not correlated with the rankings based upon the number of citations or on the Hirsch-index.

Suggested Citation

  • Marek Kosmulski, 2018. "Are you in top 1% (1‰)?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 557-565, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2526-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2526-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2526-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2526-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Hug, Sven E. & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2011. "A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 346-359.
    2. Vladimir Pislyakov & Elena Shukshina, 2014. "Measuring excellence in Russia: Highly cited papers, leading institutions, patterns of national and international collaboration," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(11), pages 2321-2330, November.
    3. Kosmulski, Marek, 2011. "Successful papers: A new idea in evaluation of scientific output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 481-485.
    4. Nobuko Miyairi & Han-Wen Chang, 2012. "Bibliometric characteristics of highly cited papers from Taiwan, 2000–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 197-205, July.
    5. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2017. "Academic performance and institutional resources: a cross-country analysis of research universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 739-764, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nadia Simoes & Nuno Crespo, 2020. "A flexible approach for measuring author-level publishing performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 331-355, January.
    2. Marek Kosmulski, 2020. "Nobel laureates are not hot," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 487-495, April.
    3. Yves Fassin, 2020. "The HF-rating as a universal complement to the h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 965-990, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    2. Kosmulski, Marek, 2012. "Calibration against a reference set: A quantitative approach to assessment of the methods of assessment of scientific output," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 451-456.
    3. Kosmulski, Marek, 2013. "Family-tree of bibliometric indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 313-317.
    4. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Maurizio Galetto & Domenico Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo, 2012. "The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual’s research output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 621-641, September.
    5. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    6. Zhenbin Yan & Qiang Wu & Xingchen Li, 2016. "Do Hirsch-type indices behave the same in assessing single publications? An empirical study of 29 bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1815-1833, December.
    7. Xin Xu & Alice M. Tan & Star X. Zhao, 2015. "Funding ratios in social science: the perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 673-684, September.
    8. James C. Ryan, 2016. "A validation of the individual annual h-index (hIa): application of the hIa to a qualitatively and quantitatively different sample," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 577-590, October.
    9. Anne-Wil Harzing & Wilfred Mijnhardt, 2015. "Proof over promise: towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 727-749, January.
    10. Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz, 2021. "Disruption indices and their calculation using web-of-science data: Indicators of historical developments or evolutionary dynamics?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    11. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2012. "HistCite analysis of papers constituting the h index research front," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 285-288.
    12. Samreen Ayaz & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2016. "Identification of conversion factor for completing-h index for the field of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1511-1524, December.
    13. Anna Tietze & Philip Hofmann, 2019. "The h-index and multi-author hm-index for individual researchers in condensed matter physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 171-185, April.
    14. Ghassan Abdul-Majeed & Wissam Mahmood & Nasri S. M. Namer, 2021. "Measuring research performance of Iraqi universities using Scopus data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2349-2363, March.
    15. Shen, Hongquan & Xie, Juan & Ao, Weiyi & Cheng, Ying, 2022. "The continuity and citation impact of scientific collaboration with different gender composition," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    16. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2017. "Does evaluative scientometrics lose its main focus on scientific quality by the new orientation towards societal impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 937-943, February.
    17. Rok Blagus & Brane L. Leskošek & Janez Stare, 2015. "Comparison of bibliometric measures for assessing relative importance of researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1743-1762, December.
    18. Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal & Sylvain Ferrières, 2016. "An axiomatization of the iterated h-index and applications to sport rankings," Working Papers hal-01394818, HAL.
    19. Maria Karaulova & Abdullah Gök & Oliver Shackleton & Philip Shapira, 2016. "Science system path-dependencies and their influences: nanotechnology research in Russia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 645-670, May.
    20. Haley, M. Ryan & McGee, M. Kevin, 2020. "Jointly valuing journal visibility and author citation count: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2526-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.