Wikipedia on H-index ---- another excellent article, and also very interesting!

I agree with you.

But why you expect so much from a integer number. Einstein 44, Fermi 50, Jim Rice 60? Of course it is too short information, to distinguish between them (Probably Jim Rice doesn't deserve to be higher than Einstein for example....).

So there is an ingredient of age, of "industrialized" production of papers.

However, the total number of paper, used until recently, was even WORSE! Many people have 500 papers!

A good check is to see the RATIO H/TOTAL number of papers. In the early stage of career, one has N=H=0, then goes to N=H=1, and so far is NOT very significant. I suspect H becomes significant for higher than 5 or 10.

For sure my H of 13 is lower than these people, and as far as this is true, I suspect it is a good index. If my H were higher than Einstein, the next day I will say it is bullshit!

I have noticed the majority of people against H are those who have it low....

Whereas the people who are always in politics, check the head of NIH peer review, have quite low. There isn't much you can do to have huge H unless you work very hard.

Are there H indexes for Dalai Lama or Al Gore? Not, but they won Nobel prize.

Is Nobel prize always a sign of equal capabilities? Probably not either.

I hope you don't mind these comments:

As far as I understand you are in Singapore and that is a good place to do research. Many more people are less lucky than you.

I would improve, if I were you, my clarity in English - frankly often I don't follow or understand your messages. I do not know your paper, but maybe your MAIN problem is just this, and not citation?

The way you write is CRUCIAL in science, almost like in fiction. Read some Grisham and you will see why writing about anything, he is so popular.

你应该考虑一些实际的能量ly write papers, more than talking about it ! You seem to write more or less the same things all the time in imechanica. Why? You need to pose focused questions, not 200 times the same questions, if people do not answer maybe the question is not clear, or is not popular, or people give up to read all this?

So relax, enjoy life!

If you have a confused plan like Eric said lately, then also relax.

Your research is of marginal interest for imechanica!

Most people here are in mechanics.

You should find I am sure, blogs in your area. There must be more in web2.0

Do you want me to look for you?

Before the blog, do you know well the literature and the journals on the subject?

http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/bibliometrics.pdf

See eg. what they just did in UK:

Research Excellence Framework

HEFCE is working to develop new arrangements for the assessment and
funding of research. The new arrangements - the Research Excellence
Framework (REF) - will be introduced after the 2008 Research Assessment
Exercise (RAE).

Outcomes of the REF consultation

We recently consulted on proposals for the REF (HEFCE 2007/34). The consultation closed on 14 February 2008 and ananalysis of responses to the consultationis now available.

In the light of the feedback received we will continue to develop
the REF, with two significant modifications to the proposals. These
were agreed following discussion with the Department for Innovation,
Universities and Skills (DIUS). The modifications are that:

• the timetable for designing the new framework will be extended by 12 months to allow sufficient time for development
• there will no longer be such a clear distinction between the
  arrangements for science-based subjects and those for all other
  subjects; for all subjects the assessment will include some combination
  of metrics-based indicators, including bibliometrics where appropriate,
  as well as input from expert panels.

Further details of these modifications are available:

• Letter from HEFCE to DIUS[Adobe PDF 68K]
• Letter from DIUS to HEFCE[Adobe PDF 290K]
• Letter from DIUS to the DIUS Select Committee[Adobe PDF 253K]
• DIUS press release
• HEFCE news item
• Written ministerial statement

The REF will consist of a single unified framework for the funding
and assessment of research across all subjects. It will make greater
use of quantitative indicators in the assessment of research quality
than the present system, while taking account of key differences
between the different disciplines. Assessment will combine quantitative
indicators - including bibliometric indicators wherever these are
appropriate - and light-touch expert review. Which of these elements
are employed, and the balance between them, will vary as appropriate to
each subject.

The REF will be developed as a single unified framework throughout
2008 and 2009. Aspects of the framework will be phased in from 2011-12,
and it will fully drive research funding for all disciplines from 2014.

Next steps

We will now proceed to pilot the new bibliometric indicator and
undertake other activities to develop the REF. Details of our plans for
this work can be found inCircular letter 13/2008to heads of HEFCE-funded higher education institutions.

Background

The Governmentannounced in March 2006
its intention to replace the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) after
2008 with an assessment system based on metrics. A working group, whose
members included representatives of the four UK higher education
funding bodies and a number of government departments, then developed a
consultation ('Reform of higher education research assessment and funding').

The Chief Executives of the Arts and Humanities Research Council and HEFCE established anexpert group
to advise on the use of research metrics in the arts and humanities in
particular. The group's final report was published in October 2006.

Following the consultation, the Government announced in the2006 pre-Budget Reportthe development of a revised scheme for assessment of quality and allocation of funding. TheDepartment for Education and Skills outlined details of the scheme in a press release. Aletter from the Secretary of Stategave further guidance to HEFCE.

The Government also announced thatthe 2008 RAEwill be conducted as planned, using the criteria already published by the subject panels.

We set out our initial plans for the development of the new system in 'Future framework for research assessment and funding' (HEFCE Circular letter 06/2007).

In November 2007 we published proposals for consultation (HEFCE 2007/34). These were informed by two research and evaluation reports on the use of bibliometric techniques:

• 'Scoping study on the use of bibliometric analysis to measure the quality of research in UK higher education institutions', Center for Science and Technology Studies, University of Leiden
• 'Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research', Evidence Ltd.

Further information

To receive news and updates on the REF, pleasejoin our REF-NEWS mailing list.

Queries about the REF should be sent torefconsultation@hefce.ac.uk.

Researchers may play dirty to beat REF

7 February 2008

ByZoë Corbyn

Senior academics predict a boom in manipulation of citations under new system. Zoe Corbyn reports.

The
类型的操作和伎俩,随着有关chers could employ to
boost their research ratings under the system set to replace the
research assessment exercise have been outlined in frank detail toTimes Higher Educationby a number of senior academics.

Under
the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework, which is out for
consultation until 14 February, research quality in the sciences will
be judged largely on the basis of the number of times an academic's
work is cited by his or her peers.

One potential technique to
maximise citations could harm young researchers looking to climb the
citation ladder. Senior scientists could manipulate publication
procedures used by their research groups to prevent first and
second-year PhD students being added as secondary authors to group
publications, a practice seen as affording students an early career
boost. They could later be used as lead authors on group work on the
understanding that they cited earlier papers from the group where their
names did not appear. The practice would circumvent the Higher
英国教育基金委员会前的计划clude "self
citations" - where academics cite their own earlier work - and would
allow senior researchers to improve their citation counts substantially.

"Any
system that undermines the aspirations and ambitions of our very best
early-career researchers would be a step backwards," said one pro
vice-chancellor.

Another senior academic said universities might
introduce institutional publication policies to ensure researchers
achieved maximum citations. "If Hefce chooses to harvest all papers
produced from an institution, the cat is really among the pigeons,"
said the source. "Institutions will have to start policing every paper
这使得机构注定for publication."

But behaviour that could hinder young researchers is just the tip of the iceberg, according to others.

"Citation
clubs" - cartels of colleagues who do deals to cite each others' work -
may become increasingly common. Observers also predict a boom in the
number of spurious or sensational papers that are more likely to grab
attention and citations.

"Lots of people quote bad science," one pessimistic senior researcher said.

"Citation clubs are already operating in the US," said one head of department.

"A
lot of academic work is already based on mutual admiration and back
scratching, and that will intensify," said another anonymous source.

Concerns that game-playing within the REF will undermine collaborative and interdisciplinary research are also being expressed.

"It
is much better to ensure that joint papers aren't published so that the
chances for citation by a group working in the same area are
increased," said one professor.

Concerns are particularly acute
within the engineering community, which Hefce acknowledges is not well
covered by the Web of Science database that it intends to use to count
citations.

"The one thing you can absolutely guarantee is that
people will skew behaviour in order to make the best out of whatever
metrics are in place," said Sue Ion, the vice-president of the Royal
Academy of Engineering. She has been working on the society's
submission to the REF consultation.

"If citations become the
be-all and end-all - and Hefce has never said they will - then academic
groups will look at where they should be publishing. The worry is that
rather than doing collaborations with small to medium enterprises and
industry that may not result in any publications, they will try to do
detailed work to report in top-flight journals."

Dr Ion added
that the society was looking at other metrics measures that might be
introduced to measure interdisciplinary and collaborative research but
that "light-touch peer review had a fair bit of attraction". However,
she said, there was no "one-size-fits-all" solution for all of
engineering's branches.

Among the more colourful suggestions
offered by researchers as to how to improve citation counts under the
REF is the use of more colons in the titles of papers.

Times Higher Education
was referred by one academic to a paper by an American academic, Jim
Dillon, "The emergence of the colon: an empirical correlate of
scholarship", in the journalAmerican Psychologistin 1981.
It records a high correlation between the use of colons in the titles
of published academic papers and other quality indicators, including
citation counts.

"We might follow this to include at least two
colons in the titles of our papers so as to ensure the highest
recognition," said the academic, adding that the downside might be a
mass breakout of what Dr Dillon might call "colonic inflation".

"I understand that it is extremely painful," he said.

zoe.corbyn@tsleducation.com

SUGGESTIONS TO BOOST YOUR CITATION COUNT IN THE REF

-

Hefce says: "The main incentive for researchers
will be to publish work that is recognised as high quality by peers and
becomes highly cited by the international academic community.
Short-term game-playing is far less likely to achieve this than
responsible strategies to nurture the talent ... and for publishing
work that enhances the group's international reputation." But more
mischievous academics have suggested some ways to maximise one's rating:

- Do not cite anyone else's research, however relevant it is, as it boosts others' citation counts and increases their funding;

-
Do not publish anything in journals with low citation rates, a group
that includes lots of applications-based journals, as it will lower
your citations;

- Do not do scientific research in fields not yet well covered by Thomson Scientific database, as your output won't be visible;

- Do not report negative results: they are unlikely to get cited;

- Join a citation club.

Readers' comments

• Charles Jannuzi
  7 February, 2008

  You have a horrible situation in the sciences where people have
  their names on papers they haven't even read, let alone contributed
  anything to. Authorship should remain authorship. So when you see an
  article with one person's name followed by AND and another person's
  name, co-authorship has some sort of meaning. I have had my names on
  papers as co-author and actually written more for the paper than the
  first name (we flipped a coin, or we went by alphabetical order, or we
  took turns). And yet when evaluations roll around, articles that I have
  written as much as 80% of the content for have counted less because
  co-authorship somehow means less or nothing. The reason is all this
  indiscriminate inclusion of names of NON-AUTHORS. It's horrendously
  dishonest.

• Onlooker
  7 February, 2008

  Try this strategy to increase your citations. Publish very critical
  articles about the work of eminent US academics. They will rush into
  print to repudiate your work, thereby increasing your citation count.
  Repeat with other well-known non-UK academics.

• K. V. Pandya
  8 February, 2008

  Having a high number of citations is absolutely the wrong way to go
  about measuring research. How can the number of citations measure the
  importance of the research, how applicable is the research? Already
  there are researchers citing and rewarding thier friends. I have
  noticed this at the conferences where one speaker praises the
  conference chair and the conference chair praises the speaker, within a
  space of half an hour. It goes on openly, needless to say it will go on
  behind closed doors. The citation clubs are an example. This form of
  research assessment will be open to wider abuse than it currently is.
  Already we have seen people talking ways of improving citations:
  joining citation clubs, using colon (like used here), not putting
  research students names on it, etc.

  Getting more and quality publications should be the way
  forward. This should be based on how does the research contribute to
  knowledge of the peers, students, industry and wider community? This
  should be important, not how many friends, research collaborators,
  former colleagues, yes and foes cite one's publications. In addition to
  this how about having HEFC sponsored conferences on different fields of
  research.

  HEFC needs to look more at how the research is disseminated
  not who has read the publication. Though this could be useful, it
  should not be the only way. It should only play a minor role in the
  research assessment.

• Barry G Blundell
  8 February, 2008

  In a Letter published in 'Nature' in 1948, Denis Gabor elucidated
  the principles of holography, however it was not until the invention of
  the laser in the early 1960's that Gabor's pioneering work came into
  its own. In short, for approximately fifteen years Gabor's Letter
  received scant attention. Today his publication is recognised as a
  seminal work and is cited widely.

  In fact, history shows that pioneering breakthroughs in
  science, technology etc, are seldom immediately recognised. Clearly
  therefore anybody who is interested in playing the RAE game should
  avoid leading the way, but rather jump onto a research bandwagon after
  it has met with establishment approval. An alternative approach is
  again demonstrated in history. Almost universally the invention of the
  transistor is attributed to the work done in the 1940's by Bardeen,
  Brattan and Shockley (1947). Since that time their work has been widely
  recognised and it would be likely that a measure of their citation
  index would be off the scale. Of course, this fails to take into
  account the fact that the transistor was actually invented in the
  1920's. In short, once citations have reached a critical number the
  truth becomes irrelevant.

  Looking back over the last two hundred years or so, it is clear
  that scientists and engineers within the UK have the credit for paving
  the way and despite the vast funding poured into US institutions,
  Britain has managed to play a pivotal role in human advancement. How
  sad therefore to see scientists and engineers in the UK being forced
  down a distorted route which is intended to mimic 'excellence'
  associated with US institutions. Have we learnt so little that we
  really believe that the human creative spirit can be quantified?
  Research is a way of life - a quest for understanding - and is
  something to disseminate to one's peers and students. Unfortunately in
  many UK institutions, students have become third-class customers as the
  RAE game has pushed their importance to one side. The pioneers who pave
  the way are unafraid to enter a darkened room without necessarily
  knowing what they will find and without being unduly concerned as to
  how long their quest will take. The continued RAE exercise simply
  serves to ensure that darkened rooms are avoided and at all times one
  plays safe.

  Although above I have acknowledged the UK's tremendous history
  in science, engineering, and other fields, there have been good times
  and not so good times. I firmly believe that future generations will
  look back on this current period as one of the more dismal times for
  creativity and innovation - simply a very poor copy of the flawed US
  model. Dr Barry G Blundell

• Aaron Ahuvia
  12 February, 2008

  Clearly, citation rates are a very flawed system for assessing
  research quality. But we need some system for doing this. For every
  problem with citation rates, there are far more serious problems with
  the current non-system system.For example, many universities ask a
  department to rate journals in a discipline. The resulting lists
  generally combine some true insight with a heaping dose of self
  interest on the part of the people making the lists, all mixed up with
  petty prejudices about how "our" (i.e. journals edited by my friends,
  or in my sub-sub-sub area) are better than "their" journals.
  Furthermore, quality is assessed based largely on the journal where
  something is published, rather than on the characteristics of the paper
  itself. When evaluating any new system, we need to keep in mind just
  how lousy the current system is.

  What is really needed is a system of multiple indicators for
  the underlying construct -- in this case research quality -- we are
  trying to measure. Any single measure can always be gamed. Even
  multiple measures can be gamed to a certain extent, but it gets harder
  to fool the system with each additional indicator used. Eventually, it
  just gets easier to do good work than to spend your time figuring out
  how to cheat.

Research Assessment Exercise
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to:navigation,search

TheResearch Assessment Exercise(RAE) is an exercise undertaken approximately every 5 years on behalf of the four UKhigher educationfunding councils (HEFCE,SHEFC,HEFCW,DELNI)
to evaluate the quality of research undertaken by British higher
education institutions. RAE submissions from each subject area, (orunit of assessment)
are given a rank by a subject specialist peer review panel. The
rankings are used to inform the allocation of quality weighted research
funding (QR) each higher education institution receives from their
national funding council.

Previous RAEs took place in 1986, 1989,1992,1996and2001. The next is scheduled in2008.

Contents
[hide]

• 1Scale
• 2Assessment process
• 3Criticism
• 4Planned changes to RAE system
• 5References
• 6External links

//

[edit]Scale

In 2001 and 1996 the following descriptions were used for each of the ratings. The scale used in 1992 is given in brackets.

• 5* (5*) Research quality that equates to attainable levels of
  international excellence in more than half of the research activity
  submitted and attainable levels of national excellence in the
  remainders.
• 5 (5) Research quality that equates to attainable levels of
  international excellence in up to half of the research activity
  submitted and to attainable levels of national excellence in virtually
  all of the remainder. (Same definition)
• 4 (4) Research quality that equates to attainable levels of
  随着几乎所有国家卓越ch activity
  submitted, showing some evidence of international excellence. (Same
  definition)
• 3a (3) Research quality that equates to attainable levels of
  national excellence in over two-thirds of the research activity
  submitted, possibly showing evidence of international excellence.
  (Research quality that equates to attainable levels of national
  excellence in a majority of the sub-areas of activity, or to
  international level in some)
• 3b (3) Research quality that equates to attainable levels of
  national excellence in more than half of the research activity
  submitted. (Research quality that equates to attainable levels of
  national excellence in a majority of the sub-areas of activity, or to
  international level in some)
• 2 (2) Research quality that equates to attainable levels of
  national excellence in up to half of the research activity submitted.
  (Same definition)
• 1 (1) Research quality that equates to attainable levels of
  national excellence in none, or virtually none, of the research
  activity submitted. (Same definition)

These ratings have been applied to "units of assessment", such as
French or Chemistry, which often broadly equate to university
departments. Various unofficial league tables have been created of
university research capability by aggregating the results from units of
assessment.[citation needed]Compiling league tables of universities based on the RAE is problematic, as volume and quality are both significant factors.

The 2008 RAE will use a four-point quality scale, and will return a
profile, rather than a single aggregate quality score, for each unit.
The quality levels—based on assessment of research outputs, research
environment and indicators of esteem—are defined as:

4*

Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour

3*

Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality,
significance and rigour but which nonetheless falls short of the
highest standards of excellence

2*

Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour

1*

Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour

Unclassified

Quality that falls below the standard of nationally recognised
work. Or work which does not meet the published definition of research
for the purposes of this assessment.

Each unit of assessment will be given aquality profile- a
five-column histogram - indicating the proportion of the research that
meets each of four quality levels or is unclassified.

[edit]Assessment process

The assessment process for the RAE focuses on quality of research
outputs (which usually means papers published in academic journals and
conference proceedings), research environment, and indicators of
esteem. Each subject panel determines precise rules within general
guidance. For RAE 2008, institutions are invited to submit four
research outputs, published between January 2001 and December 2007, for
each full-time member of staff selected for inclusion.[1]

In response to criticism of earlier assessments, and developments in
employment law, the 2008 RAE does more to take into account part-time
workers or those new to a sufficient level of seniority to be included
in the process.

[edit]Criticism

The RAE has not been without its critics, since 1996 the AUT, now incorporated within theUCU, has maintained a policy of opposition to the Research Assessment Exercise.[2]In its view,

The RAE has had a disastrous impact on the UK higher education
system, leading to the closure of departments with strong research
profiles and healthy student recruitment. It has been responsible for
job losses, discriminatory practices, widespread demoralisation of
staff, the narrowing of research opportunities through the
over-concentration of funding and the undermining of the relationship
between teaching and research.

The officialReview of Research Assessment,the2003"Roberts Report" commissioned by the UK funding bodies,[3]recommended changes to research assessment, partly in response to such criticisms.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee considered the Roberts report, and took a more optimistic view,[4]asserting that,"the
RAE had had positive effects: it had stimulated universities into
managing their research and had ensured that funds were targeted at
areas of research excellence",it concluded that"there had been a marked improvement in universities' research performance". Nevertheless, it argued that"the RAE in its present form had had its day", and proposed a reformed RAE, largely based on Roberts' recommendations.

[edit]Planned changes to RAE system

It was announced[1]in the2006Budgetthat after the2008exercise a system ofmetrics
would be developed in order to inform future allocations of QR funding.
Following initial consultation with the higher education sector, it is
thought that the Higher Education Funding Councils will introduce a
metrics based system of assessment for Science, Technology Engineering
and Medicine subjects. A process of peer review is likely to remain for
mathematics, statistics, arts, humanities and social studies subjects.

[edit]References

1. ^RAE 2008Definitions
2. ^RAE 2008University and College Union
3. ^Review of research assessment- report bySir Gareth Robertsto the UK funding bodies, May 2003
4. ^Science and Technology Committee, Eleventh Report, 15 September 2004

[edit]External links

• Current official RAE website for 2008 exercise
• Archived RAE website for 2001 exercise

• Chanson,
  H. (2007). "Research Quality, Publications and Impact in Civil
  Engineering into the 21st Century. Publish or Perish, Commercial versus
  Open Access, Internet versus Libraries ?" Canadian Journal of Civil
  Engineering, NRC, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 946-951 (DOI:10.1169/L07-027)
  (ISSN 0315 - 1468)。
• Chanson,
  h (2008). "Some Experience with Digitial Publishing, Open Access
  Repository, Research Impact and Quality." Proc.Open Access Collection
  workshop, Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories,
  Brisbane, 14 Feb., 12 pages.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Assessment_Exercise"

Categories:Research|Public bodies and task forces of the United Kingdom government

MaybeRoozbehSanaeior some other imechanica user wants to use any of these 5 sofwares using Google Scholar to improve them and perhaps link them to Excel files so that we can do large statistics, perhaps by countries, or by institution, or by area of study, like mechanics?

http://quadsearch.csd.auth.gr/index.php?lan=1&s=2

http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/loadFile.do?objectId=9710&objectType=file

http://hview.limsi.fr/

http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm

http://www-ihm.lri.fr/~roussel/moulinette/h/h.cgi

or invent your own !!

函数[h ncited] = hindex(名称、变长度输入宗量)
%HINDEX Computes the h-index of an author from Google Scholar.
% HINDEX(AUTHORNAME) computes the h-index of the author AUTHORNAME, on
% the basis of the publications referenced by Google Scholar
% (http://scholar.google.com). An active internet connection is required.
%
% The index h is defined as "the number of papers with citation number
% higher or equal to h", and has been proposed by J.E. Hirsch to
% "characterize the scientific output of a researcher" [Proc. Nat. Acad.
% Sci. 46, 16569 (2005)]. Note that the number of citations referenced by
% Google Scholar may be lower than the actual one (old publications are
% not available online).
%
% The string AUTHORNAME should contain the last name, or the initial(s)
% of the first name(s) followed by the last name, of the author (eg,
% 'A. Einstein'). Do not put the initial(s) after the last name. The scan
% is not case sensitive. Points (.) and spaces ( ) are not taken into
% account. See Google Scholar Help for more details about the syntax.
%
% Example: HINDEX('A. Einstein') returns 43 (ie: 43 papers by A. Einstein
% have been cited at least 43 times, according to Google Scholar).
%
% H = HINDEX(AUTHORNAME) only returns the h-index, without display.
%
% HINDEX(AUTHORNAME, 'Property1',...) specifies the properties:
% 'verb' also displays the list of papers returned by Google
% Scholar, rejecting the ones for which AUTHORNAME is not
% one of the authors.
% 'plot' also plots the 'Cited by' number as a function of the
% paper rank.
%
% HINDEX should be used with care. Many biases exist (homonyms, errors
% from Google Scholar, old papers are not available online, but
% unpublished or draft papers are...) For the true h-index of an author,
% it is recommended to use an official citation index database (eg, ISI).
% Use HINDEX just for fun.
%
% Remark: Massive usage of hindex may be considered by the Google
% Scholar server as a spam attack, and may invalidate the IP number of
% your computer. If this happens, you get an 'Internet connection failed'
% error message -- but you still can use Google Scholar from a web
% browser.
%
% F. Moisy,moisy@fast.u-psud.fr
% Revision: 1.11, Date: 10-jul-2006

% History:
% 22-jan-2006: v1.00-1.10, first versions.
% 07-jul-2006: v1.11, check ML version; help text improved; use properties

% check the matlab version:
if str2double(version('-release'))<14,
error('hindex requires Matlab 7 (R14) or higher.');
end;

error(nargchk(1,2,nargin));

% clean the input text:
name=lower(name);
name=strrep(name,'.',' ');
name=strrep(name,' ',' ');

ncit=0; % total number of citation
ncitinthispage=0; % number of citation in the current page
ncited=[];

seenextpage=1;
numpage=0;
while seenextpage,
numpage=numpage+1;
% find the web page:
pagename=['http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&start='num2str(100*(numpage-1)) '&q=%22author%3A' strrep(name,' ','+author%3A') '%22'];
if nargout==0,
disp(['Scanning: ' pagename]);
end;
[s, res]=urlread(pagename);
if ~res,
error('Internet connection failed.');
end;

rem=s; % remainder of the string

while strfind(rem,'Cited by '),
pauth1 = strfind(rem,'')+18; pauth1=pauth1(1);
pauth2 = strfind(rem(pauth1:min(end,(pauth1+500))),'')-1; pauth2=pauth2(1);
authstring = lower(rem(pauth1:(pauth1+pauth2-1))); % list of authors of the paper
authstring = strrep(authstring,'','');
authstring = strrep(authstring,'','');
authstring = strrep(authstring,'…','...');

% check that the required name is indeed in the author list.
paperok=0;
pos=strfind(authstring,name);
if length(pos),
pos=pos(1);
paperok=1;
if pos>1,
% check for wrong initials (eg, 'ga einstein' should not
% match for 'a einstein')
pl=authstring(pos-1);
if ((pl>='a')&&(pl<='z'))||(pl=='-'),
paperok=0;
end;
end;
if pos<(length(authstring)-length(name)),
% check for wrong 'suffix' (eg, 'einstein-joliot' should not
% match for 'einstein')
nl=authstring(pos+length(name));
if ((nl>='a')&&(nl<='z'))||(nl=='-'),
paperok=0;
end;
end;
end;

if paperok, % if the required name is indeed in the author list
ncit = ncit+1;
ncitinthispage = ncitinthispage +1;
p=strfind(rem,'Cited by ')+9; p=p(1);
substr=rem(p:(p+5));
pend=strfind(substr,'<'); pend=pend(1);
ncited(ncit)=str2double(substr(1:(pend-1)));
rem=rem((p+2):end);
if any(strncmpi(varargin,'verb',1))
disp(['#' num2str(ncit) ': (' num2str(ncited(ncit)) '), ' authstring]);
end;
else
if any(strncmpi(varargin,'verb',1))
disp(['rejected: ' authstring]);
end;
p=strfind(rem,'Cited by ')+9; p=p(1);
rem=rem((p+2):end);
end;
end;
if any(strncmpi(varargin,'verb',1))
disp(' ');
end;
if ncit==0,
seenextpage=0;
else
if ((ncited(ncit)<2)||(~length(findstr(rem,'Next')))),
seenextpage=0;
end;
end;
end; % while seenextpage

if length(ncited),
% sort the list (it should be sorted, but sometimes GS produces unsorted results)
ncited=sort(ncited); ncited=ncited(ncit:-1:1);

% computes the H-factor:
h=sum(ncited>=(1:ncit));

% plot the 'Cited by' number:
if any(strncmpi(varargin,'plot',1))
loglog(1:ncit,ncited,'.-',1:ncit,1:ncit,'--',h,h,'o');
xlabel('Paper rank'); ylabel('Number of citations');
title(['h-index plot for ''' name ''' (h=' num2str(h) ')']);
end;

% some displays if no output argument:
if nargout==0,
disp(['Number of cited papers: ' num2str(length(ncited))]);
disp(['''Cited by'' list: ' num2str(ncited)]);
disp(['Total number of citations: ' num2str(sum(ncited))]);
disp(['h-index = ' num2str(h)]);
clear h;
end;
else
h=0;
if nargout==0,
disp('No result found');
clear h;
end;
end;

In fact, h-index usually is used for authors, but now they are also using for countries or journals, see

http://www.scimagojr.com/

You seem here to introduce a new ideas --- to have h-index for subjects, and also to perhaps monitor the increase of h-index. It is certainly interesting. You should give a try. Any other imechanician interested to help us?

Mike

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

About QuadSearch

The metasearch
engines are web services designed to transfer the user's queries to
multiple existing search engines. A metasearch engine does not maintain
its own index of documents. It collects and reorganizes the result
lists (top-k lists), then it returns the processed data to the user.

Compared to a classic single search engine, a metasearch engine offers:

• Increased web coverage
• Improved retrieval effectiveness
• Effortless invocation of multiple search engines

QuadSearch is a brand new and constantly evolving metasearch engine. It is hosted by theRaptorweb server, which belongs to theData Engineering Laboratory (DELAB), of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

It has been created byLeonidas Akritidis, George Voutsakelis,Dimitrios KatsarosandPanayiotis Bozanis.

Their
main purpose is to build a powerful scientific tool, that will be used
by the academic community in order to retrieve useful information.
Their secondary objective focuses on finding better and faster ranking
algorithms.

QuadSearch's heart is
the KE Algorithm, which is the mechanism that determines the
classification of the collected results. KE Algorithm was invented by
the founders of this engine and has also been the basis forSearch Engine Analyzer.
Apart from KE Algorithm, QuadSearch is capable of using a variety of
several other ranking algorithms, to classify the results.

As mentioned
above, QuadSearch is constantly under construction. If you have any
suggestions for it, or you want to report a security issue, please let
us know, by filling the appropriatecontact form.

I start to think the best sofware is this from collegues in Paris --- maybe I can contact them!

http://hview.limsi.fr/

In fact, I suspect you can use authomatic scripts by using for example the string

http://hview.limsi.fr/hpagew2.php?level=1&subj=chm&subj=eng&name=%22M.Ci...

or maybe multiple authors so we can play with. The problem with Google Scholar is that it seems it is NOT classified by LOCATION or INSTITUTION, but only AUTHOR and FIELD.

However, see the help:

Help

• Use the OR operator with quotes for names with non-unique spellings; for example,
  The guy you think to know as Fred Vernier should be writen:

  "Frédéric Vernier" OR "Frederic Vernier"

• On the other hand you still miss some of his articles. If you type
  "F Vernier" you will have all his articles but ... also articles from someone else. You then have to deselect
  them is order to find the righth-curve!
• Warning Restricting an author to a given domain will remove all the articles
  google scholar couldn't classify ! For instance articles not written in english. Restricting to given years
  will also remove all articles google scholar couldn't determine the year.
• Most of the time data must be cleaned ! remove articles from others and
  merge articles (when typos made google duplicate a single article)
• We disclaim everything, especially every problem resulting from the data returned by Google Scholar.
• Data you enter is not logged yet ... but we want to save all
  the cleaning work done by users in order to improve the data source !
• You may save the url in the address textfield of your browser but we
  will change the format soon and the old address will return an error.
• You may enter many names in the author textfield to evaluate a full team of researsher but the system is already slow ...
• You may experience denial of service from google scholar
  sometime. Retry 2 or 3 times. If you still have nothing come back the
  day after.
• I did compute the h-view of the wholeUIST conferenceand thefirst 3for the20th anniversary of UIST. The poster was presented atUIST'07.

but then the output is very slow....both in web1 or web2 format. not sure why!

Dear M. Ciavarella

This should work for a list of people:

name={'a einstein','f moisy','c bruni'};
for n=1:length(name),
h(n)=hindex(name{n});
disp([name{n} ' ' num2str(h(n))]);
end

Sincerely
F. Moisy

Citation metrics

Publish or Perish User's Manual

Citation metrics

Publish or Perish calculates the following citation metrics:

• Total number of papers
• Total number of citations
• Average number of citations per paper
• Average number of citations per author
• Average number of papers per author
• Hirsch'sh-indexand related parameters, shown as
  h-indexandHirsch a=y.yy, m=z.zzin the output
• Egghe'sg-index, shown asg-indexin the output
• The当代h-index, shown ashc-index
  andac=y.yyin the output
• Two variations of theindividual h-index, shown as
  hI-indexandhI,normin the output
• Theage-weighted citation rate
• An analysis of the number of authors per paper.

Please note that these metrics are only as good as their input. We recommend
that you consult the following topics for information about the limitations of
the citation metrics and the underlying sources that Publish or Perish uses:

• Accuracy of the results
• Reflections on
  the h-index
• Reflections on
  Google Scholar

h-index

The h-index was proposed by J.E. Hirsch in his paperAn index to quantify
an individual's scientific research output,arXiv:physics/0508025v5 29 Sep 2005. It is defined as
follows:

A scientist has index h if h of his/her Np papers have at least h
citations each, and the other (Np-h) papers have no more than h
citations each.

It aims to measure the cumulative impact of a researcher's output by looking
at the amount of citation his/her work has received. Publish or Perish
calculates and displays thehindex proper, its associated
proportionality constanta(fromNc,tot =
ah2), and the rate parameterm(fromh ~ mn, where
nis the number of years since the first publication).

The properties of the h-index have been analyzed in various papers; see for
example Leo Egghe and Ronald Rousseau:An informetric model for the
Hirsch-index,Scientometrics, Vol. 69, No. 1 (2006), pp. 121-129.

This metric is shown ash-indexandHirsch a=y.yy,
m=z.zzin the output.

g-index

The g-index was proposed by Leo Egghe in his paperTheory and practice of
the g-index,科学计量学,卷69,没有1(2006),页131 - 152。It is
defined as follows:

[Given a set of articles] ranked in decreasing order of the number of
citations that they received, the g-index is the (unique) largest number such
that the top g articles received (together) at least g2
citations.

It aims to improve on the h-index by giving more weight to highly-cited
articles.

This metric is shown asg-indexin the output.

Contemporary h-index

The Contemporary h-index was proposed by Antonis Sidiropoulos, Dimitrios
Katsaros, and Yannis Manolopoulos in their paperGeneralized h-index for
disclosing latent facts in citation networks,arXiv:cs.DL/0607066
v1 13 Jul 2006.

It adds an age-related weighting to each cited article, giving (by default;
this depends on the parametrization) less weight to older articles. The
weighting is parametrized; the Publish or Perish implementation uses
gamma=4 anddelta=1, like the authors did for their experiments.
This means that for an article published during the current year, its citations
account four times. For an article published 4 years ago, its citations account
only one time. For an article published 6 years ago, its citations account 4/6
times, and so on.

This metric is shown ashc-indexandac=y.yyin
the output.

Individual h-index (2 variations)

The Individual h-index was proposed by Pablo D. Batista, Monica G. Campiteli,
Osame Kinouchi, and Alexandre S. Martinez in their paperIs it possible to
compare researchers with different scientific interests?,
Scientometrics, Vol 68, No. 1 (2006), pp. 179-189.

It divides the standard h-index by the average number of authors in the
articles that contribute to the h-index, in order to reduce the effects of
co-authorship; the resulting index is called hI.

Publish or Perish also implements an alternative individual h-index,
嗨,规范,采用不同的方法:of dividing the
total h-index, it first normalizes the number of citations for each paper by
dividing the number of citations by the number of authors for that paper, then
calculates hI,norm as the h-index of thenormalizedcitation
counts. This approach is much more fine-grained than Batista et al.'s; we
believe that it more accurately accounts for any co-authorship effects that
might be present and that it is a better approximation of the per-author impact,
which is what the original h-index set out to provide.

These metrics are shown ashI-index(Batista et al.'s) and
hI,norm(PoP's) in the output.

Age-weighted citation rate (AWCR, AWCRpA) and AW-index

The age-weighted citation rate was inspired by Bihui Jin's noteThe
AR-index: complementing the h-index,ISSI Newsletter, 2007, 3(1), p.
6.

The AWCR measures the number of citations to an entire body of work, adjusted
for the age of each individual paper. It is an age-weighted citation rate, where
the number of citations to a given paper is divided by the age of that paper.
Jin defines the AR-index as the square root of the sum of all age-weighted
citation counts over all papers that contribute to the h-index. However, in the
Publish or Perish implementation we sum over all papers instead, because we feel
that this represents the impact of the total body of work more accurately. (In
particular, it allows younger and as yet less cited papers to contribute to the
AWCR, even though they may not yet contribute to the h-index.)

The AW-index is defined as the square root of the AWCR to allow comparison
h指数;它接近h指数如果the (average) citation rate
remains more or less constant over the years.

The per-author age-weighted citation rate is similar to the plain AWCR, but
is normalized to the number of authors for each paper.

These metrics are shown asAWCR,AWCRpAand
AW-indexin the output.

Publish or Perish User's Manual - Topic last modified on 27/01/08 12:19
Copyright © 1990-2008 Tarma Software
Research. All rights reserved.

I just did IJSS

Most cited papers and H-factor of some mechanics journals -- IJSS

who wants to do JMPS, and the other journals?

Mike