The ranking of scientists based on scientific publications assessment

The increasing authorship trend in neuroscience: A scientometric analysis across 11 countries

Previous studies have demonstrated an increasing trend of the number of authors across various fields over the years. This trend has been attributed to the necessity for larger collaborations and, at times, to ethical issues regarding authorship attribution. Our study focuses on the evolution of authorship trends in the field of Neuroscience. We conducted our analysis based on a dataset containing 580,782 neuroscience publications produced from 2000 to 2022, focusing on the publications within the Group of ten (G10) countries. Using a matrix-based methodology, we extracted and analyzed the average number of authors per country. Our findings reveal a consistent rise in authorship across all G10 countries over the past two decades. Italy emerged with the highest average number of authors, while France stood out for experiencing the most significant increase, particularly in the last decade. The countries with the lowest number of authors per publication were the USA, UK and Canada. Differences between countries could result from variations in the size of collaboration between researchers in different countries. Additionally, these differences may depend on utilitarian considerations aimed at receiving higher scores in the individual evaluation of their own work. We propose that a normalization procedure for the number of authors should be implemented to ensure a fair evaluation of researchers.

Integrity at stake: confronting "publish or perish" in the developing world and emerging economies

The scientific community faces significant ethical challenges due to the "publish or perish" culture, particularly in developing and emerging economies. This paper explores the widespread unethical practices in scientific publishing, including the sale of authorships, the proliferation of "paper mills," and the misuse of artificial intelligence to produce fraudulent research. These practices undermine the integrity of scientific research, skew publication metrics, and distort academic rankings. This study examines various instances of academic fraud, emphasizing the impact on low-income countries, with specific cases from Latin America. Recommendations include stricter verification of authorship, disciplinary measures for scientific fraud, and policies promoting transparency and accountability in research. Addressing these challenges is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific endeavors globally.

Association of ResearchGate research influence score with other metrics of top cited sports biomechanics scholars

Study aim: Scientific networking sites are increasingly popular in connecting researchers and providing influence metrics, however the research on measures like the ResearchGate Research Influence Score (RG RIS) are limited. This study documented the associations between RG RIS, usage, and prestige metrics from Google Scholar (GS), RG, and Scopus for top cited scientists in sports biomechanics.

Material and methods: Research usage (total citations: C), prestige (Hirsch index: h), and RG RIS metrics were extracted from GS, RG, and Scopus for the top sixty cited scholars that used either the label “’73ports biomechanics” or “sport biomechanics” in their GS Profile.

Results: RG RIS was strongly correlated (r = 0.796–0.895) with all usage and prestige metrics. There were very strong correlations among the three citation metrics (r = 0.929–0.967) and among the three h indexes (r = 0.960–0.974).

Conclusions: The recent RG RIS does not provide unique scientific influence information about sport(s) biomechanics researchers beyond common citation metrics. The RG RIS was strongly associated with total citation and h-index values from GS, RG, and Scopus for top 60 cited sport(s) biomechanics researchers based on GS Profiles. The scientific usage and prestige factors previously reported in bibliometric research was supported by very strong associations among the three C and among the three h index values from these two scientific networking and one database service.

REVIEW: RESEARCH INTEREST SCORE IN RESEARCHGATE: THE SILVER BULLET OF SCIENTOMETRICS OR THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES?

Introduction: Scientists have long searched for the best way to evaluate scientific performance and have come up with numerous indices. Probably, the most famous index is the h-index, a metric that has been used widely in science metrics ever since it appeared. In this study, I evaluated the potential of the new metric Research Interest Score created by ResearchGate (RG). Methods: I analyzed the different metric indices for 88 most cited researchers at the University of Sarajevo. In particular, the number of citations and h-indexes were taken from the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases for these researchers and were correlated with their Research Interest Scores. As a measure of correlation, Pearson correlation coefficients was used. In addition, I conducted a regression analysis to examine how scientometric indices from the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar predict the Research Interest Score.  Results: The Research Interest Score was most strongly correlated with the number of Google Scholar Citations, followed by the Web of Science citations.  Interestingly, the Research Interest Score was not highly correlated with any of the h-indexes. The regression model was statistically significant and explained 90% of the variance in the Research Interest Scores predicted by the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar metric indices. The strongest predictor of the Research Interest Score was the number of Google Scholar citations. Conclusions: The Research Interest Score, a new scientometric measure created by ResearchGate, certainly has a potential to be used as a valid measure of scientific impact.

Author-Suggested, Weighted Citation Index: A Novel Approach for Determining the Contribution of Individual Researchers

A novel scientometric index, named ‘author-suggested, weighted citation index’ (Aw-index) is proposed to indicate the scientific contribution of any individual researcher. For calculation of the Aw-index, it is suggested that during the submission of a scholarly article, the corresponding author would provide a statement, agreed upon by all the authors, containing weightage factors against each author of the article. The author who contributed more to the article would secure a higher weightage factor. The summation of the weightage factors of all the authors of an article should be unity. The citation points a researcher receives from a scholarly publication is the product of his/her weightage factor for that article and the total number of citations of the article. The Aw-index of any individual researcher is the summation of the citation points he/she receives for all his/her publications as an author. The Aw-index provides the opportunity to the group of authors of a multi-authored article to determine the quantum of partial citations to be attributed to each of them. Through an illustrative example, a comparison of the proposed index with the major scientometric indexes is presented to highlight the advantages of the Aw-index.

Scientific, professional and experiential validation of the model of preventive behaviours at work: protocol of a modified Delphi Study

INTRODUCTION

To offer an in-depth understanding of preventive behaviours, those complex behaviours considered as levers to foster work prevention, recent theoretical and empirical studies permitted to develop the model of preventive behaviours at work. The next step is to validate the model with researchers, professionals and workers. This article aims to describe the study protocol that will be used to validate the model of preventive behaviours at work.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This Delphi Study proposes seven systematic steps to conduct a scientifically rigorous validation study based on scientific and professional experts' opinion. A focus group to collect workers' opinion about the model has also been included in the protocol. Thirty experts (researchers and professionals) will be selected regarding their experience (eg, at least 5 years of experience) and expertise (eg, having published at least one article as the first author in the last 3 years) towards workers' health or organisational behaviours. Workers will be recruited to have a diversity in terms of age, gender and working conditions. Quantitative data will be analysed to calculate the percentage of experts' agreement on four content validity indicators (ie, comprehensiveness, representativeness, relevance and clarity). Qualitative data will be examined through a thematic analysis strategy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval of the research ethics board of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale Nationale has been obtained. Findings will be shared with various stakeholders inclusive of researchers, professionals and workers. Findings will be disseminated in workshops, peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Measuring Productivity and Impact of Veterinary Education-Related Research at the Institutional and Individual Levels Using the H-Index

The natural progression of observation through inquiry to scholarship that is common to scientists is not well demonstrated among veterinary educators. One possible institutional barrier to promotion of education-related research among faculty is lack of a mechanism to demonstrate productivity and impact of scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and hypothesis-driven research related to education. The h-index is one measure of research productivity. The h-index was calculated for individuals at one veterinary college and was compared between select North American schools of veterinary medicine to demonstrate baseline values for this kind of scholarship in this discipline. Use of standard search techniques using Google Scholar for citation count generated a slightly lower score than a more labor-intensive search and review of curricula vitae. The h-index across institutions ranged from 1 to 11, with a mean score of 6.0 (SD = 2.8). Five hundred forty-four education-related articles were published in 45 different journals; the primary sites of publication were the Journal of Veterinary Medical Education (JVME) and the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.