Rank analysis of most cited publications, a new approach for research assessments
Citation metrics are the best tools for research assessments. However, current metrics may be misleading in research systems that pursue simultaneously different goals, such as to push the boundaries of knowledge or incremental innovations, because their publications have different citation distribu...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Recursos: | Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) |
| Repositorio: | Docta Complutense |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/99124 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/99124 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | 001.8 Citation analysis Scientific progress Highly cited Rank analysis Ciencias 22 Física |
| Resumo: | Citation metrics are the best tools for research assessments. However, current metrics may be misleading in research systems that pursue simultaneously different goals, such as to push the boundaries of knowledge or incremental innovations, because their publications have different citation distributions. We estimate the contribution to the progress of knowledge by studying only a limited number of the most cited papers, which are dominated by publications pursuing this progress. To field-normalize the metrics, we substitute the number of citations by the rank po- sition of papers from one country in the global list of papers. Using synthetic series of lognormally distributed numbers, simulating citations, we developed the Rk-index, which is calculated from the global ranks of the 10 highest numbers in each series, and demonstrate its equivalence to the number of papers in top percentiles, Ptop 0.1 % and Ptop 0.01 %. In real cases, the Rk-index is simple and easy to calculate, and evaluates the contribution to the progress of knowledge better than less stringent metrics. Although further research is needed, rank analysis of the most cited papers is a promising approach for research evaluation. It is also demonstrated that, for this purpose, do- mestic and collaborative papers should be studied independently. |
|---|