Abstract
As the academic world yields an ever-increasing research output in terms of journal papers, conference proceedings, and books, the rating of published works and authors becomes imperative. All the big citation databases and search engines are currently using cumulative output indices, such as h-index, i10-index, and g-index, which do not consider the number of co-authors or the researcher’s sequence number in the authors list of a publication. In this context, the article presents a novel computational approach for evaluating a researcher’s scholarly output by taking into account the total number of co-authors, the sequence number of the researcher in the authors list, and the number of citations received per year by an article. Arithmetic progression is applied to quantify the credit for each co-author of a publication. The respective credits of a researcher are then accumulated for all their publications to obtain the rating. The method yields a truer value of the researcher’s impact in terms of their scholarly activities. A global implementation of the metric presented in this work will curb the unethical practice of including the names of non-contributing researchers in the authors list and expecting reciprocity in return.
Highlights
The modern-day advancement and development of the world is indebted partially to the dissemination of research findings through publications
It can be inferred that the uniform spread of the fractional credit shares among a given number of coauthors is centered at the middle of the authors list
A case study focusing on rating the scholarly output of two imaginary researchers is presented
Summary
The modern-day advancement and development of the world is indebted partially to the dissemination of research findings through publications. Publication of research articles is the key to successively building on the existing levels of knowledge in a globally distributed research environment. It is reported that the current growth rate of publications in the science domains is 4.1%, leading to a doubling time of 17.3 years [1]. As a research domain is progressively taken to new heights of advancement, it becomes imperative to quantify the contributory shares of the researchers involved. Such is the current competence and efficacy level of the information and communication technology that evaluation of researchers’ scholarly impacts is considered a customary task. Having no issues with the computation prowess, the flaw lies in the methods used to evaluate the impact indices
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
