The k-index is introduced to replace the h-index to evaluate better the scientific excellence of individuals

#SharingHEOR: Developing Modern Media for Communication and Dissemination of Health Economics and Outcomes Research

Questions regarding the effectiveness and safety of health interventions and allocation of health care resources are frequently discussed in mainstream and social media. Additionally, government and foundation funders are increasingly mandating that results be disseminated to the lay public and patients may benefit from being able to digest scientific research regarding their health conditions. Therefore, it is important to widely disseminate and clearly communication health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) findings to a range of interested parties. Digital media features such as graphical or visual abstracts, infographics and videos are informative and add value to research articles by improving reader engagement with articles, potentially increasing their impact, and allowing results to be more widely disseminated. However, use of novel digital media for research dissemination has been relatively limited to date. In this article, we discuss the rationale for developing novel media to communicate and disseminate research findings and offer practical advice for doing so. We conclude by outlining a future agenda for research regarding HEOR communication and dissemination.

Defining quantitative rules for identifying influential researchers: Insights from mathematics domain

In the midst of a vast amount of scientific literature, the need for specific rules arise especially when it comes to deciding which impactful researchers should be nominated. These rules are based on measurable quantities that can easily be applied to a researcher's quantitative data. Various search engines, like Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, Web of Science etc. Are used for recording metadata such as the researcher's total publications, their citations, h-index etc. However, the scientific community has not yet agreed upon a single set of criteria that a researcher has to meet in order to secure a spot on to the list of impactful researchers. In this study, we have provided a comprehensive set of rules for the scientific community within the field of mathematics, derived from the top five quantitative parameters belonging to each category. Within each categorical grouping, we meticulously selected the five most pivotal parameters. This selection process was guided by an importance score, that was derived after assessing its influence on the model's performance in the classification of data pertaining to both awardees and non awardees. To perform the experiment, we focused on the field of mathematics and used a dataset containing 525 individuals who received awards and 525 individuals who did not receive awards. The rules were developed for each parameter category using the Decision Tree Algorithm, which achieved an average accuracy of 70 to 75 percent for identifying awardees in mathematics domains. Moreover, the highest-ranked parameters belonging to each category were successful in elevating over 50 to 55 percent of the award recipients to positions within the top 100 ranked researchers' list. These findings have the potential to serve as a guidance for individual researchers, who aimed on to making it to the esteemed list of distinguished scientists. Additionally, the scientific community can utilize these rules to sift through the roster of researchers for a subjective evaluation, facilitating the recognition and rewarding of exceptional researchers in the field.

A figure of merit that includes 5 distinct performance indicators to improve research evaluation of academic scholars'

The h index has become a widely known indicator to assess the research impact of academic scholars. However, its application has been associated with some criticism regarding its ability to fully capture the quality and significance of an author's research contributions. In this paper, we present a novel approach to improve the evaluation of authors' publications by means of a Figure-of-Merit (FOM) that includes 5 distinct indicators, of which, an enhanced version of the h index. Named the Enhanced Research Quality Index (ERQI), it addresses the current limitations of existing solutions and offers a more comprehensive evaluation of research quality. The ERQI builds upon the concept that one metric is never sufficient to capture the performance of an academic scholar, while multiple ones are complex to handle and interpret. The proposed ERQI considers the total number of citations, papers and co-authors and can further differentiate researchers with equal h index. By incorporating measurable, and quantitative metrics, ERQI moves away from subjective and indirect factors such as journal reputation, citation context, citation patterns and self-citation righteousness, to offer a more nuanced and accurate representation of research quality. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed metric, we conducted a comparative study using a real dataset of 31 researchers in one of the top 3 engineering faculties in Lebanon, and a randomly generated dataset of 1000 author profiles with >1 million citations. Our findings indicate that ERQI provides a more balanced assessment of research quality by reducing the shortcomings of one indicator. Furthermore, it exhibits a multidimensional effect that captures more efficiently the intrinsic value of scholarly contributions. By adopting ERQI, institutions can make informed decisions that recognize both the quantity and quality of an author's research output and can obtain insightful evaluation enabling fairer recognition of academic scholars' impact and innovation.

Scientific career tracks and publication performance - relationships discovered in the Hungarian academic promotion system

The paper aims to investigate the research patterns of Hungarian university full professors and career pathways in various disciplines. Hungary has a so-called ‘multi-stage’ formalized hierarchy that clearly defines the steps leading to achieve the appointment of full professor. Following the theoretical chapter in which different career scenarios – such as ‘Top Researcher’, ‘Outstanding Lecturer’ and ‘Local Manager’ are presented, an empirical analysis is carried out. The sample consists of a group of 327 professors. Our results point out that there are different research patterns and a significant gap can be observed between disciplines rather preferring international publication (scored by SJR) and the ones opting for publishing monographs. As far as career paths concerned, it was found that the number of years until reaching the PhD degree ranges between 6-13 years, 15.5–22 years are needed on average to achieve habilitation, while the time needed for getting the title of full professor ranges between 22-27 years. It is clearly perceivable that the gap in the number of years converges until reaching full professorship in each and every discipline.

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.

Research productivity and impact of Canadian academic ophthalmologists: trends in H-index, sex, subspecialty, and faculty appointment

OBJECTIVE

H-index has historically functioned as a metric of academic success for acquisition of research grants, awards, and faculty appointments. Our objective was to characterize the landscape of Canadian academic ophthalmology on the basis of research productivity and impact-as measured by H-index-with sex, subspecialty, and faculty appointment.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study based on data abstracted from publicly available databases.

PARTICIPANTS

Academic ophthalmologists from all schools in Canada with an ophthalmology residency program.

METHODS

Academic ophthalmologists and their faculty appointments were identified from university websites. Sex was determined from available provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons or Ophthalmology Society databases. H-indices were collected from Scopus and Web of Science. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate statistics were used to analyze the relationship of H-index with sex, faculty appointment, and subspecialty.

RESULTS

We included data from 696 academic ophthalmologists. The mean H-indices for lecturers and assistant, associate, and full professors were 4.0 (±5.6), 5.6 (±5.0), 8.8 (±6.3), and 15 (±12), respectively. H-index had a significant positive correlation with faculty appointment (0.521, 95% confidence interval 0.469-0.579, p = 1.77e-41). The mean H-index was 6.7 (±8.2) for women and 8.1(±8.4) for men (p = 0.0635). Women comprised 27% of faculty positions, and men were more likely to have a higher faculty appointment than women (p = 0.0073). The top subspecialties for underrepresentation of women were surgical retina, medical retina, and oculoplastics.

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty appointments are associated with research productivity, as measured by H-index. There are significant sex disparities in faculty appointments and subspecialty representation. Future directions include exploring other contributory factors to success in academic ophthalmology.