A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field
By John P. A. Ioannidis, Jeroen Baas, Richard Klavans, Kevin W. Boyack. PLoS Biology, 2019
306 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly available database of 100,000 top scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h-index, coauthorship-adjusted hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions, and a composite indicator. Separate data are shown for career-long and single-year impact. Metrics with and without self-citations and ratio of citations to citing papers are given. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 176 subfields. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists who have published at least five papers. Career-long data are updated to end of 2017 and to end of 2018 for comparison.
Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/54c85f0a66c2b61d2172ca4d70ba484a2999ccb3
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Information Systems and Management
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- The State of NLP Literature: A Diachronic Analysis of the ACL Anthology (2019, background): “…Siddharthan, and Tidhar 2006; Pham and Hoffmann 2003; Nanba, Kando, and Okumura 2011; Mohammad et al. 2009; Zhu et al. 2015), and on measuring scholarly impact (Ravenscroft et al. 2017; Priem and Hemminger 2010; Bulaitis 2017; Bos and Nitza 2019; Ioannidis et al. 2019; Yogatama et al. 2011).”
- Examining Citations of Natural Language Processing Literature (2020, background): “Furthermore, the citation process can be abused, for example, by egregious self-citations (Ioannidis et al., 2019).”
- NRC Publications Archive Archives des publications du CNRC (unknown): “Further, the citations process can be abused, for example, by egregious self-citations (Ioannidis et al., 2019).”