The Eigenfactor™ Metrics

By Carl T. Bergstrom, Jevin D. West, Marc A Wiseman. Journal of Neuroscience, 2008

378 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Quantitative metrics are poor choices for assessing the research output of an individual scholar. Summing impact factors, counting citations, tallying an h-index, or looking at Eigenfactor™ Scores (described below)—none of these methods are adequate compared with what should be the gold standard

Subfields: Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9e1061958468382c3ab290c54b92c6026b3ef2f4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level (2015, methodology): “Other methods include citation percentiles [14,20], eigenvector normalization [21,22], and source normalization [13,23]; the latter includes both the mean normalized citation score (MNCS) [17] and source-normalized impact per paper metrics [15,17,22–26].”
Memory in network flows and its effects on spreading dynamics and community detection (2013, methodology): “r at node i steps to node j and normalized such that å j p(i !j) = 1. Accordingly, the probability of ﬁnding the random walker at node j at time t +1 is P(j;t +1)=å i P(i;t)p(i !j): (S5) Many ranking (1,2) and community detection (3,4) methods as well as epidemic models (5) build directly on this me”