ACADEMIC IDENTIFIERS AND AUTHOR INDEXES ON SCIENTIFIC PLATFORMS

Abstract

An author index is a metric that helps to measure a researcher's scientific impact quantitatively. Author indices asist researchers in establishing their academic identities, finding opportunities for collaboration, and in forming mentorship relationships. Author indices are based on numerical data that indicate how often a researcher's publications are cited. It was assumed that original research was cited more frequently. Although the h-indices is often used, the need for new author indices has arisen because of issues such as the disadvantages for new authors, varying contributions of authors to research, and differentcitation probabilities in various scientific disciplines. There fore, new indices, such as the g-index, e-index, i10-index, and m-index, have been defined to provide a more objective evaluation for researchers. In this review, the differences and weaknesses of the indices are compared in the conclusion section after defining the indices and explaining the calculation methods. To uniquely identify researchers and ensure a more reliable detection and tracking of author indices, academic identity identifiers such as Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID), Researcher Identifier (Researcher ID), and Scopus Author Identifier (Scopus ID) are used, which are unaffected by factors such as name similarity. In conclusion, author indices were used by academic institutions and research organizations to assess and reward researchers' performances. These metrics play a critical role in the distribution of academic promotions, research funds, and awards. It should be kept in mind that even due to errors in studies, the number of citations can in crease, and researchers should not be evaluated solely through indices.

Keywords

• Academic identifiers
• scientific platforms
• H index
• author indices

BİLİMSEL PLATFORMLARDA AKADEMİK KİMLİK TANIMLAYICILARI VE YAZAR İNDEKSLERİ

Abstract

Yazar indeksi, akademik araştırmacıların bilimsel etkilerini nicel olarak ölçen bir metriktir. Bu indeksler, akademik topluluk içinde araştırmacıların kimliklerini belirlemelerine, iş birliği fırsatları yaratmalarına ve mentörlük ilişkileri kurmalarına yardımcı olur. Araştırmacıların belirli konulardaki uzmanlıklarını ve bu alanlardaki çalışmalarını izlemelerini sağlar. Yazar indeksleri, yayınların ne kadar sık atıf aldığını gösteren sayısal verilere dayanmaktadır. Genellikle h-indeksi kullanılsa da yeni yazarlar için dezavantajları ve bilimsel disiplinlere göre değişen atıf alma olasılıkları gibi sorunlar nedeniyle, g indeksi, e indeksi, i10 indeksi, m indeksi gibi yeni indeksler tanımlanmıştır. Bu yeni indeksler, araştırmacıların daha objektif bir şekilde değerlendirilmesini amaçlar. Bu derlemede, farklı indeksler tanımlanmış, hesaplama yöntemleri sunulmuş ve indekslerin avantajları ile dezavantajları karşılaştırılmıştır. Ayrıca, araştırmacıların isim benzerlikleri gibi faktörlerden etkilenmemesi için Açık Araştırmacı ve Katkıcı Kimliği (ORCID), Araştırmacı Kimlik Bilgisi (Researcher ID), Scopus Yazar Kimliği (Scopus ID) gibi akademik kimlik tanımlayıcılarının kullanımının önemi vurgulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, yazar indeksleri, akademik kurumlar ve araştırma kuruluşları tarafından araştırmacıların performansını değerlendirmek ve ödüllendirmek amacıyla kullanılmaktadır. Bu metrikler, akademik terfiler, araştırma fonları ve ödüllerin dağıtımında kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Bununla birlikte, çalışmalardaki yanlışlıklar nedeniyle atıf sayısının artabileceği ve bu nedenle araştırmacıların sadece indeksler aracılığıyla değerlendirilemeyeceği akılda tutulmalıdır.

Keywords

• Akademik kimlik tanımlayıcıları
• bilimsel platformlar
• H indeks
• yazar indeksleri

References

1. Kawashima H, Tomizawa H. Accuracy evaluation of scopus author id based on the largest funding database in Japan. Scientometrics. 2015;103(3):1061-1071. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1580-z.
2. Azar M, Lagacé F, Muntyanu A, et al. Measuring h-index and scholarly productivity in academic dermatology in Canada. Scientometrics. 2023;128 (2):1071-1090. doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04589-y.
3. Ravenscroft J, Liakata M, Clare A, Duma D. Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173152. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.017315 2.
4. Meho LI. The rise and rise of citation analysis. Phys World. 2007;20(1):32-36.doi: 10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/33.
5. Egghe L, Rousseau R, Ferreiro L. Introduction to informetrics: quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Rev Esp Doc Cient. 1991;14(2):251.
6. Shanks J, Arlitsch K. Making sense of researcher services. J Libr Admin. 2016;56(3):295-316.doi: 10.1080/01930826.2016.1146534.
7. Foley MJ, Kochalko DL. Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID). Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference; November 3-6, 2010; Charleston,SC. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context= charleston. Accessed December 15, 2023.
8. Meadows A. Everything you ever wanted to know about ORCID: But were afraid to ask. Coll Res Libr News. 2016;77(1):23-30. doi:10.5860/crln.77.1.9428.

9. ORCID Statistics. https://info.orcid.org/orcid-statistics/ Published October 6, 2023. Accessed October 15, 2023.
10. Cals JW, Kotz D. Researcher identification: The right needle in the haystack. Lancet. 2008;371(9631):2152-2153. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60931-9.
11. Your Researcher ID of Web of Science moved to Publons. https://www.wur.nl/en/newsarticle/Your-ResearcherID-of-Web-of-Science-moved-to-Publons.htm. Published May 29, 2019. Accessed October 15, 2023.
12. Boudry C, Durand-Barthez M. Use of author identifier services (ORCID, Researcher ID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study. Plos One.2020;15(9):e0238583. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0238583
13. Moed HF, Aisati M, Plume A. Studying scientific migration in Scopus. Scientometrics. 2013;94(3):929-942. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0783-9.
14. Lens for Institutions. The Lens. https://www.lens.org/lens/institutions. Published 2023. Accessed October 15, 2023
15. Hasan S, Breunig R. Article length and citation outcomes. Scientometrics. 2021;126(9):7583-7608. doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04083-x.
16. Teixeira da Silva JA, Nazarovets S. The role of Publons in the context of open peer review. Publish Res Q. 2022;38(4):760-781. doi:10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0.
17. Köksoy FN, Gönüllü D, Bulut T, et al. Bilim ve ekonomi: Türkiye'nin dünyadaki yeri. Turk J Surg. 2010;26(2):065-072. doi:10.5097/1300-0705. UCD.462-10.01
18. Koltun V, Hafner D. The h-index is nolonger an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLoSOne. 2021;16(6):e0253397. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253397
19. Ding J, Liu C, Kandonga GA. Exploring the limitations of the h-index and h-type indexes in measuring the research performance of authors. Scientometrics, 2020;122:1303-1322. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03364-1
20. Bihari A, Tripathi S, Deepak A. A review on h-index and its alternative indices. J Inf Sci. 2023;49(3):624-665. doi:10.1177/016555152110144
21. Manjareeka M. Evaluation of researchers: H-Index or G-Index which is better? J Integr Med Res. 2023;1(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/jimr.jimr_ 11_22
22. Ali MJ. Understanding the ‘g-index’ and the ‘e-index’. Semin Ophthalmol. 2021;36(4):139-139. doi:10.1080/08820538.2021.1907271.
23. Shanmugasundaram S, Huy B, Shihora D, Lamparello N, Kumar A, Shukla P. Evaluation of h-index in Academic Interventional Radiology. Acad Radiol. 2023;30(7):1426-1432. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2022.09.020
24. Kaliyadan F, Ashique KT. Citation indices. J Skin Sex Transm Dis. 2020;2(1):2-4. doi:10.25259/JSSTD_7_2020
25. Fırat S, Alramazanoğlu BO, Genç G, Karaşin Y, Kurutkan MN. H-İndeksi ve akademik başarıyı ölçme sorunu: Eksiklikler ve sınırlılıkları aşma çabası. J Mehmet Akif Ersoy Univ Econ Adm Sci Fac. 2022;10(3):1742-1777. doi:10.30798/makuiibf. 1097495
26. Zhang CT. The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e542. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005429
27. Jana S. Towards designing the indicator for scholarly academic research impact based on h-indices. Qual Quant Methods Libr. 2017;5(4):845-853.http://www.qqml.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/10. Accessed October 15, 2023.
28. Novak D, Batko M, Zezula P. Metric Index: An Efficient and Scalable Solution for Similarity Search. Inf Syst. 2011;36(4):721-733. doi:10.1145/1146847.1146866
29. Saleh A, Cao F, Selek S. Comparison of h and m indices among departments in McGovern Medical School. J Scientometr Res. 2020;9(1):77-81. doi: 10.5530/jscires.9.1.9
30. West JD, Jensen MC, Dandrea RJ, et al. Author-level Eigenfactor metrics: Evaluating the influence of authors, institutions, and countries within the social science research network community. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec. 2013;64(4):787-801. doi: 10.1002/asi.22790
31. Davis MJ, Abu-Ghname A, Agrawal N, Reece EM, Winocour SJ. Reply: Impact Factor, h-Index, and Alternative Metrics: How Should We Measure the Impact of Publications in Plastic Surgery?.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(5):902e-904e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007851.
32. Khan N. Citation Indices: A Review. J Pak Dent Assoc.2020;29(2). doi:10.25301/JPDA.292.87.
33. Pepe A, Kurtz MJ. A measure of total research impact independent of time and discipline. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e46428. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0046428.
34. Downey KJ. Author metrics. In: Dreker MR, Downey KJ, ed. Building Your Academic Research Digital Identity: A Step-Wise Guide to Cultivating Your Academic Research Career Online. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2024:69-83.
35. Ameer M, Afzal MT. Evaluation of h-index and its qualitative and quantitative variants in neuroscience. Scientometrics. 2019;121(2):653-673. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03209-6.
36. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Duisenova A, et al. Researcher and author impact metrics: Variety, value, and context. J Korean Med Sci. 2018;33(18):e139. doi:10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e139.
37. Saba L, Porcu M, Rubeis GD, et al. A new system of authorship best assessment. J Public Health Res. 2023;12(1):227990362211498. doi:10.1177/22 799036221149840.
38. Mondal H, Mondal S. A brief review on article-, author-, and journal-level scientometric indices. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2022;13(5):578-584. doi:10.4103/idoj.idoj_729_21.
39. Schreiber M. Revisiting the g‐index: The average number of citations in the g‐core. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2009;61(1):169-174. doi:10.1002/asi. 21218.
40. Mcallister PR, Narin F, Corrigan JG. Programmatic evaluation and comparison based on standardized citation scores. IEEE Trans EngManag. 1983;30(4):205-211. doi:10.1109/TEM.1983.64 48622.
41. Bornmann L, Tekles A, Leydesdorff L. How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators. Scientometrics. 2019;119(2):1187-1205. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03071-6
42. Aksnes D, Rorstad K, Piro F, Sivertsen G. Are female researchers less cited? A large‐scale study of norwegian scientists. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;62(4):628-636. doi:10.1002/asi.21486.
43. Vucovich LA, Baker JB, Smith JT. Analyzing the impact of an author's publications. J Med Libr Assoc. 2008;96(1):63-66. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.96.1.63.
44. Ali M, Mustafa K, Gatiti P. ORCID id source of scholarly identity: A Pakistani librarians awareness. J Inf Manag Pract. 2021;1(1):1-13. doi:10. 52461/jimp.v1i1.545.
45. Powell J, Hoover CG, Gordon A, Mittrach M. Bridging identity challenges: Why and how one library plugged orcid into their enterprise. Libr Hi Tech. 2019;37(3):625-639. doi:10.1108/lht-04-2018-0046.