The “Index of MCW” as a way to resolve some problems of negative influencing of scientometric on the science

Leonid  Ershteyn

ПРЕПРИНТ

Эта статья является препринтом и не была отрецензирована.
О результатах, изложенных в препринтах, не следует сообщать в СМИ как о проверенной информации.

The “Index of MCW” as a way to resolve some problems of negative influencing of scientometric on the science

L. Ershteyn

2023-11-27

https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3112889

The purpose of this work is an analysis of advantages and disadvantages the scentometric as an effectiveness of scientist’s action and a presentation the indicator which able to solve some disadvantages of scientometric. The methods of acheiveng the goals were an empirical analysis of scientometric based on using the popular scentometrics databases, critical analysis of empirical information, the social networks surveys, theoretical syntheses of research problems. In the paper was received the next results: Were revealed such problems of scentometric as: cheating, public relation, negative citing, citing of non-scientific works, writing the scientific papers in the most popular realms, the time problem, the coauthors problem. As a way of design some of these problems the Index of “maximum cited work” has been presented. The practical implication of the paper is a possibility to use this index for an assessment of action effectiveness of scientists.

Ссылка для цитирования:

Ershteyn L. 2023. The “Index of MCW” as a way to resolve some problems of negative influencing of scientometric on the science. PREPRINTS.RU. https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3112889

Список литературы

1. Barnes, C. (2017). The h-index debate: an introduction for librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(6), 487-494.

2. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2009). The state of h index research: Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO reports, 10(1), 2-6.

3. Cronin, B. (1981). The need for a theory of citing. Journal of documentation, 37(1), 16-24.

4. David, D., & Frangopol, P. (2015). The lost paradise, the original sin, and the Dodo bird: a scientometrics Sapere Aude manifesto as a reply to the Leiden manifesto on scientometrics. Scientometrics, 105, 2255-2257.

5. de Rijcke, S., & Rushforth, A. (2015). To intervene or not to intervene; is that the question? On the role of scientometrics in research evaluation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1954-1958.

6. Egghe, L. (2010). The Hirsch index and related impact measures. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol., 44(1), 65-114.

7. Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2011). Criticism on the hg-index. Scientometrics, 86(2), 339-346.

8. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics, 1, 359-375.

9. Koltun, V., & Hafner, D. (2021). The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLoS One, 16(6), e0253397

10. Leydesdorff, L. (2001). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Universal-Publishers.

11. Loan, F. A., Nasreen, N., & Bashir, B. (2022). Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar h-index? Library Hi Tech, 40(3), 676-684.

12. Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European journal of operational research, 246(1), 1-19.

13. Paolucci, M., & Grimaldo, F. (2014). Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism. Scientometrics, 99, 663-688.

14. Scheffler, M., & Brunzel, J. (2020). Destructive leadership in organizational research: a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 125(1), 755-775.

15. Sharma, P., & Sharma, S. K. (2022). Global Research Trends on Plagiarism: Scientometric Study. Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science, 11(2), 140-145.

16. Stech, F., Heckman, K. E., Hilliard, P., & Ballo, J. R. (2011). Scientometrics of deception, counter-deception, and deception detection in cyber-space. PsychNology Journal, 9(2).

17. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2021). Researchers’ attitudes towards the h-index on Twitter 2007–2020: criticism and acceptance. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5361-5368.

18. Van Raan, A. (1997). Scientometrics: State-of-the-art. Scientometrics, 38(1), 205-218.

19. Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h‐index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406-415.

20. Бредихин С. В., Кузнецов А. Ю., Щербакова Н. Г.(2013) Анализ цитирования в библиометрии. Новосибирск: ИВМиМГ СО РАН,НЭИКОН, 344 (on Russian)

21. Эрштейн, Л. Б. (2016) Индекс цитирования как способ разрушения науки в России и мире. Влияние на научное руководство и образование. Alma Mater (Вестник высшей школы). 11. 97-101. (on Russian)

ПРЕПРИНТ

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ