128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22157456)
1. Bibliometrics of anaesthesia researchers in the UK.
O'Leary JD
Br J Anaesth; 2012 Jan; 108(1):164-5; author reply 165. PubMed ID: 22157456
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Bibliometrics of anaesthesia researchers in the UK.
Moppett IK; Hardman JG
Br J Anaesth; 2011 Sep; 107(3):351-6. PubMed ID: 21622666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Bibliometrics and assessing performance and worth.
Webster NR
Br J Anaesth; 2011 Sep; 107(3):306-7. PubMed ID: 21841048
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Bibliometric analysis of anaesthesia journal editorial board members: correlation between journal impact factor and the median h-index of its board members.
Pagel PS; Hudetz JA
Br J Anaesth; 2011 Sep; 107(3):357-61. PubMed ID: 21700614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Key discoveries often originate with lone researchers.
Green SJ; Brendsel J
Nature; 2008 Nov; 456(7220):315. PubMed ID: 19020595
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Junior researchers: Fewer papers would scotch early careers.
McDowell GS; Polka JK
Nature; 2016 Jun; 534(7609):621. PubMed ID: 27357785
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. n-index: a novel and easily-calculable parameter for comparison of researchers working in different scientific fields.
Namazi MR; Fallahzadeh MK
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2010; 76(3):229-30. PubMed ID: 20445291
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Impact: Akin to quantifying dreams.
Woodgett J
Nature; 2013 Nov; 503(7475):198. PubMed ID: 24226881
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Impact: China needs to review its metrics.
Ma X; Song Z
Nature; 2013 Nov; 503(7475):198. PubMed ID: 24226882
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Faculty cuts: University managers misled by metrics.
Butts T
Nature; 2014 Jul; 511(7511):534. PubMed ID: 25079545
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Achievement index climbs the ranks.
Ball P
Nature; 2007 Aug; 448(7155):737. PubMed ID: 17700666
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Measures for measures.
Lehmann S; Jackson AD; Lautrup BE
Nature; 2006 Dec; 444(7122):1003-4. PubMed ID: 17183295
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Fewer numbers, better science.
Benedictus R; Miedema F; Ferguson MW
Nature; 2016 Oct; 538(7626):453-455. PubMed ID: 27786219
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Automated grading of research performance clearly fails to measure up.
Haeffner-Cavaillon N; Graillot-Gak C; Bréchot C
Nature; 2005 Dec; 438(7068):559. PubMed ID: 16319861
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. H-index: however ranked, citations need context.
Wendl MC
Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7161):403. PubMed ID: 17898746
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Metrics market.
Nature; 2014 Jun; 510(7506):444. PubMed ID: 24971436
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. The evaluation of the individual impact factor of researchers and research centers using the RC algorithm.
Cordero-Villafáfila A; Ramos-Brieva JA
Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment; 2015; 8(3):189-94. PubMed ID: 25023181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Let's move beyond the rhetoric: it's time to change how we judge research.
Curry S
Nature; 2018 Feb; 554(7691):147. PubMed ID: 29420505
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. H-index: age and sex make it unreliable.
Kelly CD; Jennions MD
Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7161):403. PubMed ID: 17898745
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The pressure to publish pushes down quality.
Sarewitz D
Nature; 2016 May; 533(7602):147. PubMed ID: 27172010
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
