科学家评估:我们使用正确的指标了吗?

IF 0.5 4区化学 Q4 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Quimica Nova Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.21577/0100-4042.20170955

Josefredo Pliego Jr.

{"title":"科学家评估:我们使用正确的指标了吗?","authors":"Josefredo Pliego Jr.","doi":"10.21577/0100-4042.20170955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"SCIENTISTS’ ASSESSMENT: ARE WE USING THE CORRECT METRICS? The use of metrics to evaluate scientists is widespread in the present time, with implications for hiring, fellowships, and research grants. Such fact requires that metrics must be constantly scrutinized to be improved. This work analyzes the use of metrics in the area of chemistry in Brazil and discusses its limitations and shortcomings. The main findings indicate that the use of the impact factor must be complemented by the cited half-life of the journals, and a composite metric named influence factor is proposed, similar to the R-impact. The h-index is not a good metric anymore because does not correct for authorship inflation. The individual h-index (hi), which takes into account fractional counting of citations, is more reliable than the h-index. An analysis on the use of hi-index with randomly selected 15 Brazilian chemists among the top 500 more productive shows an important effect on the ranking order.","PeriodicalId":49641,"journal":{"name":"Quimica Nova","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AVALIAÇÃO DOS CIENTISTAS: UTILIZAMOS AS MÉTRICAS CORRETAS?\",\"authors\":\"Josefredo Pliego Jr.\",\"doi\":\"10.21577/0100-4042.20170955\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"SCIENTISTS’ ASSESSMENT: ARE WE USING THE CORRECT METRICS? The use of metrics to evaluate scientists is widespread in the present time, with implications for hiring, fellowships, and research grants. Such fact requires that metrics must be constantly scrutinized to be improved. This work analyzes the use of metrics in the area of chemistry in Brazil and discusses its limitations and shortcomings. The main findings indicate that the use of the impact factor must be complemented by the cited half-life of the journals, and a composite metric named influence factor is proposed, similar to the R-impact. The h-index is not a good metric anymore because does not correct for authorship inflation. The individual h-index (hi), which takes into account fractional counting of citations, is more reliable than the h-index. An analysis on the use of hi-index with randomly selected 15 Brazilian chemists among the top 500 more productive shows an important effect on the ranking order.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49641,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quimica Nova\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quimica Nova\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21577/0100-4042.20170955\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quimica Nova","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21577/0100-4042.20170955","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

科学家的评估是:我们是否使用了正确的衡量标准?在当今时代，使用指标来评估科学家是很普遍的，这对招聘、奖学金和研究资助都有影响。这样的事实要求必须不断地仔细检查度量标准以加以改进。这项工作分析了巴西化学领域指标的使用，并讨论了其局限性和缺点。主要研究结果表明，影响因子的使用必须辅以被引期刊的半衰期，并提出了一种类似于R-impact的复合指标，称为影响因子。h指数不再是一个好的指标，因为它不能修正作者膨胀。单独的h-index (hi)考虑了引用的分数计数，比h-index更可靠。一项对500强中随机抽取的15名巴西化学家使用高指数的分析显示，高指数对排名顺序有重要影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

AVALIAÇÃO DOS CIENTISTAS: UTILIZAMOS AS MÉTRICAS CORRETAS?

SCIENTISTS’ ASSESSMENT: ARE WE USING THE CORRECT METRICS? The use of metrics to evaluate scientists is widespread in the present time, with implications for hiring, fellowships, and research grants. Such fact requires that metrics must be constantly scrutinized to be improved. This work analyzes the use of metrics in the area of chemistry in Brazil and discusses its limitations and shortcomings. The main findings indicate that the use of the impact factor must be complemented by the cited half-life of the journals, and a composite metric named influence factor is proposed, similar to the R-impact. The h-index is not a good metric anymore because does not correct for authorship inflation. The individual h-index (hi), which takes into account fractional counting of citations, is more reliable than the h-index. An analysis on the use of hi-index with randomly selected 15 Brazilian chemists among the top 500 more productive shows an important effect on the ranking order.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Quimica Nova 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

1.60

自引率

12.50%

发文量

审稿时长

2-4 weeks

期刊介绍： Química Nova publishes in portuguese, spanish and english, original research articles, revisions, technical notes and articles about education in chemistry. All the manuscripts submitted to QN are evaluated by, at least, two reviewers (from Brazil and abroad) of recognized expertise in the field of chemistry involved in the manuscript. The Editorial Council can be eventually asked to review manuscripts. Editors are responsible for the final edition of QN.