User login

You are here

Most cited papers and H-factor of some mechanics journals -- IJSS

Mike Ciavarella's picture

IMPORTANT UPDATE JULY 18

The full list of journals ranked by H index

It is possible to rank journals equally as authors, using e.g. the Harzing Publish or Perish sofware based on Google Scholar. I did the excercise for IJSS. It turns out the H-index is 78 (slightly higher than even the best authors in solid mechanics, but not stellar).  In the most highlycited papers, we find good names, but not stellar papers.

The results may be affected by the limitations of the software.

UPDATE:  IT APPEARS THAT HARZING HAS TWO PAPERS ON THIS IDEA, SEE ATTACHED.

Query: international journal of solids and structures : all
Summary: <<
Papers:    999    Cites/paper:    40.41    h-index:    78    AWCR:    3300.81
Citations:    40365    Cites/author:    23235.82    g-index:    118    AW-index:    57.45
Years:    44    Papers/author:    551.73    hc-index:    35    AWCRpA:    1747.13
Cites/year:    917.39    Authors/paper:    2.21    hI-index:    39.00
                hI,norm:    58

Hirsch a=6.63, m=1.77
Contemporary ac=10.78
Cites/paper 40.41/28.0/23 (mean/median/mode)
Authors/paper 2.21/2.0/2 (mean/median/mode)

225 paper(s) with 1 author(s)
473 paper(s) with 2 author(s)
199 paper(s) with 3 author(s)
74 paper(s) with 4 author(s)
22 paper(s) with 5 author(s)
6 paper(s) with 6 author(s)
>>

Cites,Authors,Title,Year,Source,Publisher,ArticleURL,CitesURL

416, E RIKS , An incremental approach to the solution of snapping and buckling problems ,1979, International Journal of Solids and Structures

411, B BUDIANSKY, RJ OCONNELL , Elastic moduli of a cracked solid ,1976, International Journal of Solids and Structures , link

404, GT Camacho, M Ortiz , Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials ,1996, International Journal of Solids and Structures , ingentaconnect.com , link , link

282, JC SIMO, JW JU , Strain- and stress-based continuum damage models. I- Formulation. II- Computational aspects ,1987, International Journal of Solids and Structures , link

280, RM MCMEEKING, JR RICE , Finite-element formulations for problems of large elastic-plastic deformation ,1975, International Journal of Solids and Structures , link

276, JW JU , On energy-based coupled elastoplastic damage theories- Constitutive modeling and computational … ,1989, International Journal of Solids and Structures , link

247, RB KING , Elastic analysis of some punch problems for a layered medium ,1987, International journal of solids and structures , cat.inist.fr , link , link

234, B BUDIANSKY, JW HUTCHINSON, JC LAMBROPOULOS , Continuum theory of dilatant transformation toughening in ceramics ,1983, International Journal of Solids and Structures , link

220, H Sosa , Plane problems in piezoelectric media with defects ,1991, International Journal of Solids and Structures , link

219, S Srinivas, AK Rao , Bending, vibration and buckling of simply supported thick orthotropic rectangular plates and … ,1970, International Journal of Solids and Structures , link , link

213, PV Lade , Elasto-plastic stress-strain theory for cohesionless soil with curved yield surfaces ,1977, International Journal of Solids and Structures , link
 

AttachmentSize
hjournals.pdf1.78 MB
gsdemo.pdf72.89 KB

Comments

I did the same at,

 http://insitu.lri.fr/~roussel/projects/scholarindex/index.cgi

It seems that Google only returns somewhere between 998 and 1000 references.  I don't know if this would change the calculation or not.

As a comparison the h-index for IJSS is 78, JMPS is 75, and JAM is 80

So here is one issue.  If you search for all articles published in "Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids" you get an h of 75, but it turns out that you miss all of the papers published in "J MECH PHYS SOLIDS".  I imagine that there is a similar problem for IJSS. 

 Citation Numbers are very problematic in their nature. (Citation Statistics).

Anyway S2=h^2, Why we forgot S1,S3 completely?.

I have read that paper which suggested h factor. 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

Roozbeh, if you want a simple number (which is why H-index is becoming so popular), you cannot describe this curve any better than this!

Essentially, we expect the curve to be "similar" to the shape you drawn --- in fact, the very fact that you drawn it like that, replies to your question.   You did NOT draw a rectangle, so you have already your solution in your question!

if S2 is proportional to S1+S2+S3, i prefer to use S1+S2+S3!

(ONLY if we neglect this fact ignorantly that many authors only used papers and did not choosed them  for their advantages. they used any thing they could use faster, and others followed them!!!)!

Mike Ciavarella's picture

Check yourself.  If the curve has the same shape, then it doesn't matter if you sum S1+S2+S3 or if you don't.    So keep it simple! 

So your proposed correction is likely to be a second order correction ONLY to distinguish between authors that for weird reasons have strange curves.

It is like in random process, you are happy in most cases with mean and rms.  Only for strongly non-gaussian processes you need more "moments".

Also, Hirsch has the BIG advantage that he arrived first.  A few authors have proposed other indexes, g-index, etc., but noone has had the success of the SIMPLE h-index.

Anyway, measure some curves and let me know if my guess is correct.  See if the distributions of h-index and of your S1+S2+S3 is significantly different for say, the Timoshenko medallist.  If it is, you can raise a case.

if a scientist be a normal case S2 is good.

if a scientist be a normal or unnormal case S1+S2+S3 is good!.

then we use S1+S2+S3 only for unnormal cases?

i think Hirsch got popularity only because many past high ranked researchers had same curves. building ranking on ranking is wrong. ranking should build on reasons of rationality of a number.not only because we found a high number is many perviously choosed researchers. (there are controversies even about nobel)

of course all of these are build oncitation. my reasons for irrevalancy of citations were very clear.

I know most of HIGHLY CITED SCIENTISTS are excellent, but we want to use H factor for anyone. not only for A. Einstein!.and if a number is high for bests, it does not mean it is greater only when someone is better. 

if a curve and curve+noise have same Peaks it does not mean curve=curve+noise!

 

 

 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

Rozbeh

 you will find easily that people beleive more if you prove with facts.  I know is boring to do many searches and then statistics, but I am sure you will NOT convince anyone by just hypothesis.  But up to you to try like that!  Keep trying ;)

Mike

 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

Thanks Chad, I knew we were a good team !  :)

The 1000 limit is ok. More problematic with the names of journals. 

Below I repeat J MECH PHYS SOLIDS : and Journal of the MECHanics and PHYSics of SOLIDS . The former seems to contain old papers,and the top one is Dugdale with 1421, and the latter is the newer papers, with GOOD NEWS for our friend Zhigang.  The top one is

570, Z Suo, CM Kuo, DM Barnett, JR Willis ,

I have not tried to use logical operators to improve and combine

Journal of the MECHanics and PHYSics of SOLIDS or J MECH PHYS SOLIDS . 

This is a simple choice, maybe you can do it.  Clearly we need our own software.  Have you seen my post about this?

Wikipedia on H-index ---- another excellent article, and also very interesting!

Ciao, Mike

 

Query: J MECH PHYS SOLIDS : all
Summary: <<
Papers:    998    Cites/paper:    28.01    h-index:    75    AWCR:    972.39
Citations:    27950    Cites/author:    20871.01    g-index:    144    AW-index:    31.18
Years:    104    Papers/author:    707.40    hc-index:    26    AWCRpA:    668.43
Cites/year:    268.75    Authors/paper:    1.69    hI-index:    49.34
                hI,norm:    62

Hirsch a=4.97, m=0.72
Contemporary ac=5.75
Cites/paper 28.01/6.0/1 (mean/median/mode)
Authors/paper 1.69/2.0/1 (mean/median/mode)

461 paper(s) with 1 author(s)
422 paper(s) with 2 author(s)
85 paper(s) with 3 author(s)
22 paper(s) with 4 author(s)
7 paper(s) with 5 author(s)
1 paper(s) with 6 author(s)
>>

Cites,Authors,Title,Year,Source,Publisher,ArticleURL,CitesURL

1421, DS Dugdale , Yielding of steel sheets containing slits ,1960, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

1023, Z Hashin, S Shtrikman , A variational approach to the theory of the elastic behavior of multiphase materials ,1963, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

967, JW HUTCHINSON , SINGULAR BEHAVIOUR AT THE END OF A TENSILE CRACK IN A HARDENING MATERIAL ,1968, J MECH PHYS SOLIDS , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

933, JR RICE, GF ROSENGREN , PLANE-STRAIN DEFORMATION NEAR A CRACK TIP IN A POWER-LAW HARDENING MATERIAL ,1968, J MECH PHYS SOLIDS , esag.harvard.edu , link , link

683, R Hill , A self-consistent mechanics of composite materials ,1965, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

678, R Hill , Elastic properties of reinforced solids: some theoretical principles ,1963, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

502, A KELLY, WR TYSON , TENSILE PROPERTIES OF FIBRE-REINFORCED METALS-- COPPER/TUNGSTEN AND COPPER/MOLYBDENUM ,1965, J MECH PHYS SOLIDS , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

434, JR RICE , ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRITICAL TENSILE STRESS AND FRACTURE TOUGHNESS IN MILD STEEL ,0, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , esag.harvard.edu , link , link

418, HW Lord, Y Shulman , A generalized dynamical theory of thermoelasticity ,1967, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

401, XP Xu, A Needleman , Numerical simulations of fast crack growth in brittle solids - all 2 versions » ,1994, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , link

399, NA Fleck, JW Hutchinson , A phenomenological theory for strain gradient effects in plasticity ,1993, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , 164.107.79.177 , link , link

387, R Hill , A general theory of uniqueness and stability in elastic-plastic solids ,1958, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

354, EM Arruda, MC Boyce , A three-dimensional constitutive model for the large stretch behavior of rubber elastic materials ,1993, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link
 

 

Query: Journal of the MECHanics and PHYSics of SOLIDS : all
Summary: <<
Papers:    1000    Cites/paper:    32.82    h-index:    75    AWCR:    3232.95
Citations:    32823    Cites/author:    17329.66    g-index:    117    AW-index:    56.86
Years:    56    Papers/author:    531.43    hc-index:    43    AWCRpA:    1586.86
Cites/year:    586.13    Authors/paper:    2.29    hI-index:    34.09
                hI,norm:    55

Hirsch a=5.84, m=1.34
Contemporary ac=6.99
Cites/paper 32.82/20.0/11 (mean/median/mode)
Authors/paper 2.29/2.0/2 (mean/median/mode)

196 paper(s) with 1 author(s)
472 paper(s) with 2 author(s)
217 paper(s) with 3 author(s)
86 paper(s) with 4 author(s)
23 paper(s) with 5 author(s)
6 paper(s) with 6 author(s)
>>

Cites,Authors,Title,Year,Source,Publisher,ArticleURL,CitesURL

570, Z Suo, CM Kuo, DM Barnett, JR Willis , Fracture Mechanics for Piezoelectric Ceramics - all 2 versions » ,1992, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids(UK) , link

553, WD Nix, H Gao , Indentation size effects in crystalline materials: A law for strain gradient plasticity ,1998, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , Elsevier , link , link

383, V Tvergaard, JW Hutchinson , The Relation Between Crack Growth Resistance and Fracture Process Parameters in Elastic--Plastic … ,1992, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids(UK) , seas.harvard.edu , link , link

377, H Gao, Y Huang, WD Nix, JW Hutchinson , Mechanism-based strain gradient plasticity—I. Theory ,1999, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , Elsevier , link , link

288, JR Rice , Dislocation Nucleation From a Crack Tip: an Analysis Based on the Peierls Concept ,1992, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids(UK) , esag.harvard.edu , link , link

270, RM McMeeking , Finite Deformation Analysis of Crack-Tip Opening in Elastic-Plastic Materials and Implications for … ,1977, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , link

232, CF Shih , Relationships Between the J-Integral and the Crack Opening Displacement for Stationary and Extending … ,1981, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , link

227, NP O’Dowd, CF Shih , Family of crack-tip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter-II. Fracture applications ,1992, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

218, JA Shaw, S Kyriakides , Thermomechanical aspects of NiTi ,1995, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , Elsevier , link , link

216, R HILL, JR RICE , Constitutive analysis of elastic-plastic crystals at arbitrary strain ,1972, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , link

191, NA Fleck, JW Hutchinson , A reformulation of strain gradient plasticity ,2001, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , Elsevier , link , link

188, SR Kalidindi, C Bronkhorst , Crystallographic Texture Evolution in Bulk Deformation Processing of FCC Metals ,1992, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids(UK) , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

181, H Gao, TY Zhang, P Tong , Local and global energy release rates for an electrically yielded crack in a piezoelectric ceramic ,1997, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , Elsevier , link , link

177, JR WILLIS , Bounds and self-consistent estimates for the overall properties of anisotropic composites ,1977, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , link

170, R HILL, JW HUTCHINSON , Bifurcation phenomena in the plane tension test ,1975, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , link
 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

 

Suprising that H=75, while IJSS has H=78, it means too few papers in JMPS?

The results of the old and coincise notation are confirmed more or less..  Dudgale therefore returns first.  Second, Hashin & Shtrikman, then a few Hutchinson, Rice, Hill and so all the good classics are there.  However, the Suo paper has disappeared!

Therefore, the Google Scholar limit at 1000 has sometimes some weird effects --- despite what is claimed by the publish and perish manual

MSG_MAX_RESULTS

Generally speaking, the missing results are deemed by Google Scholar to be less
relevant than the ones that were returned. In terms of citations, these are
usually articles with few (or no) citations. The omission may or may not be significant: most high-level citation metrics
such as the h-index and g-index are fairly robust and are unlikely to be
affected. However, if you are looking for one or more specific results, then
these might be missing from the results list.

So, either some degree of manual use is required, or a better software to scan more precisely the database.

 

 Mike

Query: Journal of the Mechanics and PHYSics of SOLIDS OR J MECH PHYS SOLIDS : all
Summary: <<
Papers:    999    Cites/paper:    28.31    h-index:    75    AWCR:    990.11
Citations:    28280    Cites/author:    21088.61    g-index:    144    AW-index:    31.47
Years:    104    Papers/author:    707.65    hc-index:    27    AWCRpA:    677.63
Cites/year:    271.92    Authors/paper:    1.69    hI-index:    49.34
                hI,norm:    62

Hirsch a=5.03, m=0.72
Contemporary ac=5.43
Cites/paper 28.31/7.0/2 (mean/median/mode)
Authors/paper 1.69/2.0/1 (mean/median/mode)

459 paper(s) with 1 author(s)
429 paper(s) with 2 author(s)
82 paper(s) with 3 author(s)
21 paper(s) with 4 author(s)
7 paper(s) with 5 author(s)
1 paper(s) with 6 author(s)
>>

Cites,Authors,Title,Year,Source,Publisher,ArticleURL,CitesURL

1421, DS Dugdale , Yielding of steel sheets containing slits ,1960, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

1023, Z Hashin, S Shtrikman , A variational approach to the theory of the elastic behavior of multiphase materials ,1963, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

967, JW HUTCHINSON , SINGULAR BEHAVIOUR AT THE END OF A TENSILE CRACK IN A HARDENING MATERIAL ,1968, J MECH PHYS SOLIDS , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

933, JR RICE, GF ROSENGREN , PLANE-STRAIN DEFORMATION NEAR A CRACK TIP IN A POWER-LAW HARDENING MATERIAL ,1968, J MECH PHYS SOLIDS , esag.harvard.edu , link , link

683, R Hill , A self-consistent mechanics of composite materials ,1965, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

678, R Hill , Elastic properties of reinforced solids: some theoretical principles ,1963, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

502, A KELLY, WR TYSON , TENSILE PROPERTIES OF FIBRE-REINFORCED METALS-- COPPER/TUNGSTEN AND COPPER/MOLYBDENUM ,1965, J MECH PHYS SOLIDS , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

434, JR RICE , ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRITICAL TENSILE STRESS AND FRACTURE TOUGHNESS IN MILD STEEL ,0, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , esag.harvard.edu , link , link

418, HW Lord, Y Shulman , A generalized dynamical theory of thermoelasticity ,1967, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

401, XP Xu, A Needleman , Numerical simulations of fast crack growth in brittle solids - all 2 versions » ,1994, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , , , link

399, NA Fleck, JW Hutchinson , A phenomenological theory for strain gradient effects in plasticity ,1993, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , 164.107.79.177 , link , link

387, R Hill , A general theory of uniqueness and stability in elastic-plastic solids ,1958, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

354, EM Arruda, MC Boyce , A three-dimensional constitutive model for the large stretch behavior of rubber elastic materials ,1993, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

351, NP O’Dowd, CF Shih , Family of crack-tip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter-I. Structure of fields ,1991, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

346, Z Hashin, S Shtrikman , On some variational principles in anisotropic and nonhomogeneous elasticity ,1962, J. Mech. Phys. Solids , adsabs.harvard.edu , link , link

 

It does not seem like any "Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids" appears in this list.

In any case, what is the point that is being made with this? 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

See the papers of Anne Harzing to see the points if you are interested. I attached 2 of them.

It is an alternative of the impact factor.  It is more democratic (if you use GS) as it is free.  It is easier to measure or to combine as you like, whereas "impact factor" is a "property" of the publishers (for-profit organizations).  Is this enough for you?

I recently searched the isihighlycited.com scientists.  I find some flaws --- do you know the algorithm there seems to be "secret"?  The lobbies can introduce people or remove them as they like (remember what they did to me with IJSS --- quite interesting story....)

I will see if I can write an email to Ann Marie Harzing, this is a strong limitation of her software.

I have now officially wasted too much time on this.  By my count, including the full and abbreviated names it seems that JMPS is over 100 but close to that number, and IJSS is at 84.

What is interesting when looking at these numbers is that JMPS has a significant number at 500+ citations while IJSS does not. 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

Chad, thank you not just from me, but from many imechanician.

Why you say wasted time?

First of all, I am glad JMPS is much higher than IJSS, it deserves it.

Secondly, what is instructive here is for the young imechanician, to have the TOP 100 list.

Can you provide us?  The young students today only look at last 5 years, whereas we need to suggest them the TOP papers.

It would be good to have a bound volume of the Top 100.  At least to collect all the links on a imechanica post. You will agree with me that the TOP 84 list of IJSS is also useful.

Alternative, we can combine all the journals we consider of our interest, and make the absolute TOP 100.   This perhaps will be different from the previous compilations, because the previous compilations were empirically found not systematically searched for.

 Mike

Hi Mike,

I can't understand the excitement about h-indices and other such measures of scientific creativity.  Could you explain why that's of interest?  To me it looks like an exercise in "mine is bigger than yours".

I can think of two main reasons why a h-index may be of use.  First, in hiring new faculty you can look at their h-idex to determine how productive they have been.  Second, you can use a person's h-idex to determine whether they should be given a promotion/awardor not.

For the first situation, the error bars in the h-idex will probably be bigger than the h-index itself.  For the second, the usefulness of the metric is only to a very narrow set of people who are academics.  The amount of money a person brings in is much more indicative/predictive of performance than a h-index.

If students start reading papers written only by people with a high h-index (or in journals with a high h-index) they will miss out of much of the meat of research.  In my experience high h-index papers are interesting because they usually introduce new ideas - but the details of the implementation and the problems with those ideas can only be found in papers that are hardly read.  For instance, most of the experimental data that I've used for developing some of my models have come from uncited or low citation papers.  The papers had been uncited not because they were written poorly or were of poor quality but because they were written by young researchers who subsequently left academia.

People have wasted a lot of time debating objective rates (and continue to do so) because they hadn't bothered reading  B Bernstein, 1960, Hypo-elasticity and elasticity, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis. That paper has seen only ~30 citations in 48 years. 

In my opinion the top journals in mechanics are Proc. Royal Soc. Lond. A,/JMPS for theory/experiment and CMAME/IJNME for numerics.  The rest are second or third rate whatever they may claim their citation index to be.  But that doesn't mean that we should ignore all the other journal. All we should do is keep in mind that the ideas there are usually derivative.

 

Finally, for a touch of levity, here's a Standard Model for Sociology which we in mechanics need to keep in mind (from Keiran Healy)

we use h factor not only for scientists who make concepts but for
others who work on details. citation is very depend on popularity of main
hypothesis and topic, and many other factors very much.

Mike Ciavarella's picture

 Dear Biswajit

  thanks for your criticism.  I suspect a lot of the answers are already into your question!

1) That H-index is popular is a matter of fact, and does NOT depend on me.  In fact, yesterday I posted a much more interesting post  A 25million US$ challenge for imechanica: VIRGIN EARTH CHALLENGE which I had expected to reach the top immediately as (i) it is for a very high reward -- (ii) it is for a good cause, the future of our earth and the energy crisis which is a very stupid thing, driven largely by the waste of energy we do every day, and it must be said, by the US largely.

2) yet, H-index of journals sky-rocketed to the TOP yesterday and maybe reached 600 hits, while the much more interesting topic with 25M$ reward was almost forgotten about

3) I conclude that as you say "ranking" and "who has it bigger" is an intrinsic motivation of scientists, as well as any other.  You can easily experiment that it is better to be the richest of the neighboroohod, than to be the poorest - independent on how actually rich, happy, healthy and what you are doing is worthwhile or not.  This is called HUMAN NATURE

4) H-index I find correct index in many respects, and it gives a nice standard measure NOT only to rank scientists but also countries, journals, etc

5) a GOOD use of this depends on the user. I know personally that the BEST paper in JMPS, Dugdale 1960, was infact preceded by a Soviet paper, by Leonov and Panasiuk 1959 One should consider M. Ya. Leonov’s paper together with V. V. Panasyuk) “Development of the smallest cracks in a solid,” published in the journal “Prykladna Mekhanika” [No. 4, 391 – 401 (1959); for English translation, see Fiz.-Khim. Mekh. Mater., 36, o. 4, 109 – 118 (1996)], to be the first weighty success of fracture mechanics in Eastern Europe.  But everybody knows Dugdale!!

6) So I hope you can see, I keep reading voraciously the literature, either "popular" or not "popular".

7) I simply would like to see journals ranked and the TOP H-papers for each journal, and then we move on !

 Regards , Mike

1022 CA-CANCER J CLIN

494 ANNU REV IMMUNOL

4624 NEW ENGL J MED
483
ANNU REV BIOCHEM
4509 NAT REV CANCER
5499 SCIENCE
4512 NAT REV
IMMUNOL
5393 REV MOD PHYS
4514 NAT REV MOL CELL BIO
1121 CELL
4519
NATURE
4502 NAT MED
5042 PHYSIOL REV
4500 NAT IMMUNOL
4497 NAT
GENET
499 ANNU REV NEUROSCI
486 ANNU REV CELL DEV BI 1
4097 LANCET

4034 JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC
4494 NAT BIOTECHNOL
1823 ENDOCR REV

4515 NAT REV NEUROSCI
1200 CHEM REV

have you seen this paper?

Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of
bacteriophage T4
- all 9 versions »
UK Laemmli… - Nature, 1970 -
nature.com

Nature 227, 680 - 685 (15 August
1970); doi:10.1038/227680a0. ... Chem., 244,
4406 (1969). © 1970
Nature Publishing Group Privacy Policy.
Cited by 78062 - Related Articles - Web Search

What is total citation of imechanicians!.

the problem also exists in sub-disciplines. (crack propagation is more popular than acoustics)

 many Dugdales remain unknown with this new factors!. number of papers has increased, we dont live in 1960. if paper dont get citation it goes to PAGE 100 of scholar.google.com,

Mike Ciavarella's picture

Roozbeh

if you want to compare mechanics to other fields, this is a serious idea, let's do it. You probably have realized that classical mechanics is indeed dying and many people jumped into biological - related mechanics.  See Huajian Gao and his successful research at

 http://www.engin.brown.edu/Faculty/gao/gaogroup/

However you usually raise 10 ideas but never complete any of them / this is dangerous like Leonardo who wrote at his time 14000 pages of science, and never published anything!

So you risk the paradox of blogs :  you work on how research has impact, but you will PERISH if you never PUBLISH!   It is true that we are moving to DEMO or DYE or to Publish AND Perish, but you need to be careful

Now, to go back to your distinction, it is very true that impact is not equally distributed among disciplines this is well known you are NOT the first to say or notice I am afraid!

Go to  http://www.isihighlycited.com/   you will find the best or at least the 250 most highlycited scientist for each of 21 disciplines, totalling 5250 scientists.  You will be also surprised to find that 4014 are from US, which strikes with the distribution of H-index and of total of documents, which you find instead at 

http://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php 

Actually I found there also already the H index of journals!  Nature has  H=531 so H works as you see despite your criticisms....

I will write something about all this more precisely when I find more time.  Please now also take your time to think about before responding with 10 more comments.

Thank you. 

 

I have done some research and i found mathematical correlation between citation numbers (also h factors) of  sub-topics and citation (also h factor) of scientists. (i think it is very obvious).

dependence of h factor on size of country is already published and agreed.

Forget Nature, Science and A. Einestein, we want to use h factor for more ordinary cases. it is not correct for them. have you published paper in Nature? I have not!.

i will refer to papers instead of comments after this.

Dear Mike,

Your answers were not entirely satisfying.  Let me reply to some of your points. 

1)  " That H-index is popular is a matter of fact, and does NOT depend on me."  Indeed, drugs and porn are also quite popular and may even be useful to some people - does that mean that we should all start using them?  Yours is not a scientific answer at all :)

2) The Virgin earth challenge is probably too difficult not any single person to address.  Also, Eric's and Rozzbeh's (and also my) observations suggest that the number of reads is linearly related to the number of comments and may not reflect the number of readers.  I have a suspicion that we may have only around 50 human readers per comment with the rest of the readers being in the form of bots and webcrawlers.  So the number of hits does not mean that a topic is necessarily popular.

3) I don't think ranking is the prime motivation of scientists as a group or most people in general.  However, you may be right that some academic scientists may be rank driven - academic departments do tend to select such individuals.  Personally, I have found that many such rank-driven people are  assholes (see Bob Sutton's No Asshole Rule [video ]).

4) Once again, I find the idea of ranking countries based on scientific output ridiculous.  What generalization are uyou going to make about, say Cameroon?  That all Cameroonians are idiots because  their h-index is low?  That reminds me of 19th century European racists who decided on the intelligence or otherwise of entire groups of people based on the shapes of their chin !

5) Surely you don't think that Dugdale's was the best paper ever to be published in JMPS!  What do you mean by best? 

6) It's good that you can afford to read the literature voraciously.  I hope  our younger readers get that message.

7)  The Google scholar rankings do not separate out self citations and citations in arbitrary pages.  I would like to see the actual number of citations of a paper by people who have not known the author personally.  That would be a better measure of the actual impact of a paper.  My opinion still remains that the exercise is pointless and a waste of our time though a list of highly cited papers (400 or more in our field, 2000 or more in physics) can be useful to a beginning graduate student.

Regards,

Biswajit 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

 

I agree with most of what you say, except the comparison of H-index with Porn and Drug I think goes too far --- but is a good rethorical example.

I think our discussion is very fruitful, and I have already said you and Roozbeh are extremely good partners in the discussion, including when you are irritating :)  See my recent comment from Anne-Wil Harzing directly A very interesting contribution from Anne-Wil Harzing !

I have to insist that there seem to be more interest in H-index, than in our REAL problems like the energy crisis. I think, and I am not alone (Sir Richard Branson said the same), that the energy crisis is a GOOD think--- in fact, finally we will agree to REDUCE the energy consumption.  Maybe our USA friends will start to buy LESS of the Porsche Cayenne to go to Shopping Malls.

Where do you really think we disagree? I particularly like that you agree a LIST of the TOP papers is useful as a start for the young students.

I conclude that we probably agree at about 99%, and we can start work together on the same direction!  :)  If you read my post about the VIRGIN Challenge more carefully, I also suggested it is too hard for an individual (indeed as the prize of 25millions suggests), but for imechanica as a whole???

Mike Ciavarella's picture

 

Bijwait

   however, don't underestimate the importance of "ranking"  --- it's the very key to the early success of Google.   Google was the first company to heavily invest into ranking, and so documents you find on Google are high up ONLY if they have high access.

 

   Of course, the very same success of Google, hides that advertissment and other forms of "pumping" the ranking by paying, is the other side of the medal.   So very soon this will happen also in Science.  People will pay, or at least form "citation clubs" to improve ranking and citations.  I think I have posted already something about this when I discussed about the Research Excellence Framework in UK.

 

Regards

Mike

Roozbeh Sanaei's picture

Search Mechanical+Engineering+Forum in Google.
This
one
comes before Imechanica. (at least in my computer!).

I dont think any body tries to PUMP this blog into Google. 

Laptop for College (Mechanical Engineering Student)Laughing

General Questions
1) What is your budget?
$1000-$1600
2) What size
notebook would you prefer?
a. Ultraportable; 12" screen or less
b. Thin
and Light; 13" - 14" screen
c. Mainstream; 15" - 16" screen

d. Desktop
Replacement; 17"+ screen
-B-
3) Please select your country's flag as a
post icon and tell us what country are you buying this in.
U.S.
4) Are
there any brands that you prefer or any you really don't like?
5) What tasks
will you be performing with the notebook?
Pretty much all the normal stuff
except for gaming. I dont really need my laptop to be a great gaming machine.
Also, I'm majoring in mechanical engineering so I'll need to run programs like
autoCAD.
6) Will you be taking the notebook with you to different places or
leaving it on your desk?
Mostly desk.
7) Will you be playing games on it;
if so, which games?
No
8) How many hours of battery life do you
need?
Over 5 preferably.
9) Do you mind buying online without seeing the
notebook in person?
No
10) What OS do you prefer? Windows (XP or Vista),
Mac OS, Linux, etc.
Not sure. Xp or Vistas fine.
Screen Specifics
11)
From the choices below, what screen resolutions would you prefer?
[B]d.
WXGA or WXGA+ - 1280x768/800 or 1440x900; Wider viewing version of XGA, good for
movie viewing or spreadsheets.[/B

e. WSXGA+ - 1680x1050; Wider viewing
version of SXGA, good for movie viewing or spreadsheets.
f. WUXGA -
1920x1200; Wider viewing version of UXGA, good for movie viewing or
spreadsheets.
-D-
12) Do you want a glossy/reflective screen or a
matte/non-glossy screen?
Glossy
Build Quality and Design
13) Are the
notebook's looks and stylishness important to you?
Somewhat
14) When are
you buying this laptop and how long do you want this laptop to last?
Early
August at the latest. Hopefully throughout college.
Notebook
Components
15) How much hard drive space do you want; 40GB to 500GB?
Not
really sure. 250GB sound good?
16) Do you need an optical drive? If yes, a
CDRW/DVD-ROM, DVD Burner or Blu-Ray drive?
DVD burner

Mike Ciavarella's picture

;)

Mike Ciavarella's picture

Chad

how did you do this calculation, and can I see the 100 papers with at least 100 citations please?

If you see Scimago, based on Scopus we find H=63 for JMPS so lower than the 100 you indicate

Also I did very carefully about with PoP and I found 79 so not too distant from my first number  (see attached image) and see also 

The full list of journals ranked by H index

At least if you use Google's citation numbers then they are correct.  This also assumes that I do not find the same paper from the search on "J MECH PHYS SOLIDS" and on "Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids". 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

 

But maybe also SCOPUS, see my other post. Which finds JMPS & IJSS much lower than you found

The full list of journals ranked by H index --- but not the list of highlycited papers :(

Anyway, I guess the actual "number" is questionable, the list is more important.

Did you keep a copy of the 100 papers or your brute force effort was lost?  

Let me know if these links work, and you can see them for yourself. Sometimes the site does not work.    J MECH PHYS SOLIDS     Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

 

With these links I need to effectively repeat the search, and why you want everybody to do that?  I have for example my IP stuck on some searches because of problems with Google Scholar.  OK to be coincise, but a nice list on imechanica with the hyperlinks would be better.  Somebody did that on my original post, and I thank him/her.

 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

See some background on this type of analysis at www.harzing.com

Online papers - Anne-Wil Harzing

A Google Scholar H-Index for Journals:
A Better
Metric to Measure Journal Impact in Economics & Business?

Adobe Acrobat file Download paper (1821 KB) http://www.harzing.com/download/hjournals.pdf

November 2007 - We propose a new metric and data source to assess
journal impact in the field of Economics & Business. The metric – Hirsch’s
h-index – improves on the traditionally used ISI Journal Impact Factor by
providing a more robust and less time-sensitive measure of journal impact. The
data source – Google Scholar – provides a more comprehensive coverage of
citations than ISI, including citations in books, conference and working papers
and non-ISI indexed journals. A systematic comparison between the Google Scholar
h-index and the ISI Journal Impact Factor for a sample of 838 journals in
Economics & Business shows that the former provides a more accurate and more
comprehensive measure of journal impact.

Google Scholar: the democratization of citation
analysis?

Adobe Acrobat file Download paper (73 KB) - 

November 2007 - Traditionally, the most commonly used source of
bibliometric data is Thomson ISI Web of Knowledge, in particular the (Social)
Science Citation Index and the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which provide the
yearly Journal Impact Factors (JIF). This paper presents an alternative source
of data (Google Scholar, GS) as well as three alternatives to the JIF to assess
journal impact (the h-index, g-index and the number of citations per paper).
Because of its broader range of data sources, the use of GS generally results in
more comprehensive citation coverage in the area of Management and International
Business. The use of GS particularly benefits academics publishing in sources
that are not (well) covered in ISI. Among these are: books, conference papers,
non-US journals, and in general journals in the field of Strategy and
International Business. The three alternative GS-based metrics showed strong
correlations with the traditional JIF. As such, they provide academics and
universities committed to JIFs with a good alternative for journals that are not
ISI-indexed. However, we argue that these metrics provide additional advantages
over the JIF and that the free availability of GS allows for a democratization
of citation analysis as it provides every academic access to citation data
regardless of their institution’s financial means.

I have also attached these papers to the main post.

 

So it seems the problems we are experiencing with Chad are entirely expected.

Mike Ciavarella's picture

If anyone is interested to study sistematically the mechanics journals using Google Scholar as well as ISI-Web of Science (hoping to gradually however avoid that, since is for huge price as Anne Harzing also says, and we should release our library for this waste of money, at least when GS becomes a little more reliable....) and write a paper, this sounds an effort that a community like imechanica should do. GS is very close to ISI-Web of Science, probably with some "additional" software we can get it there.

Maybe an idea for Zhigang to ask funding from Google.org like recently did his Harvard collegue in doing GoogleHeart Map?

I await for candidates to share the workload!

Citation and Games Scientists play, or, The citation index game.

This numbers need very much poolishing before becoming a tool for rational (not only precipitant) evaluation. main problem is evaluting contribution of each ref. in whole paper.

Mike Ciavarella's picture

Roozbeh, thanks for the interesting reference. Of course we need to keep a balance on these issues.

However, see another effect of Google Scholar.   In ISI-Thompson, I doubt you find LEONARDO da VINCI, despite he has so much influence.  [he is certainly to be blamed for NOT having published anything about science despite he was the engineer of the man, Francois I, who funded the Bibloteque de France!], but at least in Google Scholar you find that he has H=10!

Query: leonardo da vinci : all
Summary: <<
Papers:    672    Cites/paper:    1.01    h-index:    10    AWCR:    38.37
Citations:    677    Cites/author:    609.14    g-index:    15    AW-index:    6.19
Years:    213    Papers/author:    486.35    hc-index:    6    AWCRpA:    34.99
Cites/year:    3.18    Authors/paper:    1.69    hI-index:    10.00
                hI,norm:    10

Hirsch a=6.77, m=0.05
Contemporary ac=4.28
Cites/paper 1.01/0.0/0 (mean/median/mode)
Authors/paper 1.69/1.0/1 (mean/median/mode)

37 paper(s) with 0 author(s)
400 paper(s) with 1 author(s)
106 paper(s) with 2 author(s)
39 paper(s) with 3 author(s)
51 paper(s) with 4 author(s)
33 paper(s) with 5 author(s)
6 paper(s) with 6 author(s)
>>

Cites,Authors,Title,Year,Source,Publisher,ArticleURL,CitesURL
49, L da Vinci , The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci ,1970, , books.google.com , link , link

 

48, L Da Vinci , Tratado de La Pintura ,2003, , Distal , , link
19, RFL da Vinci , the sinuses of Valsalva ,1991, Ann Thorac Surg , , , link

 

16, L da Vinci , A Treatise on Painting ,2007, , books.google.com , link , link

 

 

13, L da Vinci , a Memory of His Childhood ,1961, Trans. Alan Tyson. New York: Norton , , , link

 

13, L da Vinci , Notebooks ,1957, , lulu.com , link , link

 

11, FSL da Vinci , a memory of his childhood (1910) ,0, Standard Edition , , , link

 

10, L da Vinci , Treatise on painting (Codex Urbinas Latinus 1270) ,0, Trans. and ed. AP McMahon , , , link

 

10, L da Vinci , Trattato della pittura ,0, Rome: Edizioni Libri d'Arte,[19--] , , , link

 

10, L Da Vinci , Cuaderno de notas ,1995, Traducción de José Luis Velaz. ME Editores. SL Madrid , , , link

 

 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

The future of UK universities will be evaluated mostly with citations:  see

Research Excellence Framework

http://imechanica.org/node/3467#comment-8099

 

We need numbers for ranking if we dont want to stick to peer review and number of papers. but this citation is very faulty. for example, refering to papers just for using their statements!.  copying references from their real references are prevalent.  in fact many of the works have not more than 4 main references. but they refered up to 50 papers. Error is 92%! it is not negligible. the caricature from stanford univ. is real. most of works are weak and we want to filter, but by this factors this weak works make our judgements (dont forget this fact that most of papers are never cited according to ISI statistics!).

 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

 

I have been talking to specialists of the software about the problem of the OR command and the long journal names. I have found In fact, when using the OR command ALL of the papers with the long journal name disappear. We have implemented the OR command correctly,but I do suspect that there is a problem with Google Scholar's implementation of it.


In fact when I tried to reproduce PoP's results in Google Scholar I found that their "return articles published in" field only accepts a certain number of characters and the search string ""Journal of theMECHanics and PHYSics of SOLIDS" OR "J MECH PHYS SOLIDS"" is too long as it cut off. I suspect this might be the root of the problem.

We need to write to Google Scholar about this, maybe we can in the mean time resolve our immediate problem by using the general citation search and use all of the words or the phrase. You will find this does result in the desired combination of short and long journal name results.

p.s.  so who volonteers to write to scholar-support@google.com  ?

I need to look also at


http://www.harzing.com/pophelp/dlg/prefs-queries.htm
http://www.harzing.com/pophelp/dlg/author-query.htm

 

 

 

Mike Ciavarella's picture

 

Using Anne-Wil's suggestion to go for general citation search, I got worse and also better ---

1) first of all, now if I use in the journal list "J mech phys solids" or "journal of the mechanics and physics of solids" GS returns me an error 1169 and I cannot access not even after 2 hours

2) in the phrase box "J mech phys solids" or "journal of the mechanics and physics of solids" returns 84 which is an improvement

3) in the phrase box "J mech phys solids" or "journal of the mechanics and physics of solids" or "JMPS", this goes down to 26!   So adding a short name make things much worse!

We need to make the precise case to Google Scholar and ask them.

or "JMPS"

Mike Ciavarella's picture

 

you are all invited to check

The full list of journals ranked by H index

You will find that mechanics is loosing terrain, and in particular JMPS with respect to IJSS ! 

This is very different with Impact factor based
ranking, and it shows one thing, bibliometric based evaluation is very chaotic!.because of High Noise to Signal Ratio!

 

Those familiar with academia know that disputes over trademarks can be more intense (and, in a prurient sense, more interesting) than disputes over substance. hypothetical discussions is more interesting for me!, since this is very contraversy discussion, talking without having statistics in hand is worthless. i am very neutral in this discussion.be sure that it is not my personal problem!

Subscribe to Comments for "Most cited papers and H-factor of some mechanics journals -- IJSS"

Recent comments

More comments

Syndicate

Subscribe to Syndicate