Author-level metrics [Neurosurgery Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Author-level metrics ======
The endeavor to mathematically quantify the impact of individual [[clinician]]s and [[researcher]]s on their respective fields has led to the creation of several [[author]]s- and [[institute]]-level [[metrics]]. The "traditional" author-level metrics include the number of [[paper]]s published by an [[author]] [number of [[publication]]s (NP)], the number of [[citation]]s (NC) accrued by an author, and metrics that combine the preceding two, such as the author [[H-index]] (AHi), [[G-index]], and [[i10-Index]]. Several academic [[database]]s such as [[Web of Science]], [[Google Scholar]] (GS), [[Scopus]] (Sc), [[Publons]], and [[ResearchGate]] (RG) provide the traditional metrics at the individual author level, and they have become widely used. However, the major [[limitation]] of the entire class of [[citation-based metrics]] has always been their inability to capture the real-world impact of a body of research, which may not necessarily be reflected by the NC received by a [[paper]] or an author
((Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Harzing AW, Alakangas S. Scientometrics. 2016;106:787–804.))
((Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006;3:7.))
((The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. Koltun V, Hafner D. PLoS One. 2021;16:0.))
----
Kalvapudi et al. aimed to assess the [[congruence]] between traditional [[metrics]] reported across [[Google Scholar]] (GS), [[Scopus]] (Sc), and [[ResearchGate]] (RG). They also aimed to establish the mathematical [[correlation]] between traditional metrics and alternative metrics provided by ResearchGate. 

[[Author]] names listed on [[paper]]s published in the [[Journal of Neurosurgery]] (JNS) in 2019 were collated. Traditional metrics number of [[publication]]s (NP), number of [[citation]]s (NC), and author H-indices (AHi)] and alternative metrics (RG score, Research Interest score, etc. from RG and the GS i10-index) were also collected from publicly searchable author profiles. The concordance between the traditional metrics across the three databases was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The mathematical relation between the traditional and alternative metrics was analyzed. Results The AHi showed excellent agreement across the three databases studied. The level of agreement for NP and NC was good at lower median counts. At higher median counts, we found an increase in disagreement, especially for NP. The RG score, number of followers on RG, and Research Interest score independently predicted NC and AHi with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Conclusions A composite author-level matrix with AHi, RG score, Research Interest score, and the number of RG followers could be used to generate an "Impact Matrix" to describe the scholarly and real-world impact of a clinician's work.
((Kalvapudi S, Venkatesan S, Belavadi R, Anand V, Madhugiri VS. The Author-
Level Metrics Study: An Analysis of the Traditional and Alternative Metrics of
Scholarly Impact for Neurosurgical Authors. Cureus. 2022 Jul 21;14(7):e27111.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.27111. PMID: 36004033; PMCID: PMC9392480.))

2: Grogan D, Reddy V, Gupta A, Chang YF, Fields D, Agarwal N. Trends in Academic
Spine Neurosurgeon Productivity as Measured by the Relative Citation Ratio.
World Neurosurg. 2021 Mar;147:e40-e46. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.11.097. Epub
2020 Nov 26. PMID: 33248304.