Skip to main content

Scientist Impact Factors (SIF)

Nowadays the impact of a scientist's work is as important as the work itself. And of course, there are many many different ways of measuring this impact: (i) number of citations, (ii) h-index, (iii) publish or perish, etc. Of course, for all of these self-citations are an important issue to be taken care of. There are many pro's and con's for any measure, e.g. the h-index has been suggested to be replaced by a g-index. Both the h- and g-index measure the combination of productivity and impact, but the values are calculated differently. A h-index of 20 means that the author has at least 20 papers that are cited at least 20 times. The g-index corresponds to the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received (together) at least g2 citations.

Another much more simple measure has so far not been discussed, and which is related to the impact factor for journals. For a given year, say 2008, one looks at the total number of citations for papers in the journal from the years 2006 and 2007 (A), and divide it by the total number of papers in the journal for the years 2006 and 2007 (B). The impact factor is then given by A/B.

Of course, the same procedure could be applied to scientists. I have had to update my statistics recently for a research proposal, so was in an unique position to generate the data. In the figure below, I have plotted my Scientist Impact Factor (SIF) for the years 1998-2009 (also indicated is the one for 2010, although there the statistics is not finished yet).

As one can see, there is a gradual improvement of the SIF, reaching a respectable 7.67 (5.25 without self-citations) for 2009. This SIF measure (without self-citations) might thus be used as additional measure for measuring the impact of a scientist's work, and complement the total number of citations and the h-index.


Popular posts from this blog

Impact of Plan S on Chemistry research in Europe

Below is given a list of journals that are present at the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) and that are listed in one of the seven categories in Chemistry in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR): ·CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL ·CHEMISTRY, APPLIED ·CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR ·CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL ·CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY ·CHEMISTRY, ORGANIC ·CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL These seven categories include all 553 journals in Chemistry (see Appendix 1), except some general scientific journals like Nature, Science, Nature Communications, Scientific Reports, etc. and also does not include new initiatives like iScienceChem Squared
The full list of 49 DOAJ entries in Chemistry (8.9% of all Chemistry journals) is given in Appendix 2, but shown here below is the list of 11 journals (2.0% of all Chemistry journals in JCR!!!!) that I recognize[1]:
·ACS Central Science·Catalysts·Chemical Science·ChemistryOpen·Croatica Chemica Acta·Frontiers in Chemistry·International Journal of Molecular Sciences·Journ…

Impact of Plan-S on European Research in 10 scientific disciplines

A few weeks ago I posted already the troubling current situation for Chemistry, where out of 553 journals listed in Journal Citation Reportsonly 48 journals[1] are included in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and only 11 were known to me (i.e. 2.0%).

Today I add the same analysis for nine more fields in scientific research (Bio, CompSci, Engin, Math, MatSci, Med, Phys, Psych, Social)[2][3], with similar results. Out of the total of 4773 journals listed in JCR for these disciplines, only 399 are listed in DOAJ (8.4%).

Within the field of Chemistry, the majority of the 48 JCR/DOAJ journals were not known to me, and often included local/national journals. Assuming that the same holds for the other disciplines, and using a conservative estimate for this proportion of unknown journals (at least half), one comes to the conclusion that for the ten fields of science listed below, only ca. 2-4% of scientific journals is currently compliant with Plan S.

FieldNr. in JCRNr. in DOAJBio…

Exotic chemistry trumps nature

A few weeks ago the Twitter world was surprised by several Tweets where Chemistry played a big role. First of all, @StuartCantrill posted a cry for help:
Can somebody please hurry up and make a cyclic trimer from livermorium – I'm desperate to use 'Bizarre Lv triangle' as a cover line at NChem — Stuart Cantrill (@stuartcantrill) May 26, 2017 A few days later there was a late-night typo by @RealDonaldTrump:
Despite the constant negative press covfefe — Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) May 30, 2017 which was deleted the next day (but that does not work), and replaced by a challenge:
Who can figure out the true meaning of "covfefe" ??? Enjoy! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017
This obviously calls for a #CompChem solution, and hence I accepted the challenge and proposed a structure for the cyclic trimer livermorium (at BP86/TZ2P with Spin-Orbit ZORA as done within the ADF program):
something like this?
(cyclic Lv3 trimer with odd orbitals) pic.twit…