This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Scientometrics, Infometrics, and Altmetrics (94)

Published on in Vol 14, No 5 (2012): Sep-Oct

Two h-Index Benchmarks for Evaluating the Publication Performance of Medical Informatics Researchers

Two h-Index Benchmarks for Evaluating the Publication Performance of Medical Informatics Researchers

Two h-Index Benchmarks for Evaluating the Publication Performance of Medical Informatics Researchers

Authors of this article:

Khaled El Emam1, 2 ;   Luk Arbuckle1 Author Orcid Image ;   Elizabeth Jonker1 ;   Kevin Anderson1
Article Authors Cited by (16) Tweetations (15) Metrics

Journals

  1. Watkins M, Chan-Park C. The research impact of school psychology faculty. Journal of School Psychology 2015;53(3):231 View
  2. Bornmann L, de Moya Anegón F. What proportion of excellent papers makes an institution one of the best worldwide? Specifying thresholds for the interpretation of the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking and the Leiden Ranking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014;65(4):732 View
  3. Leydesdorff L, Wouters P, Bornmann L. Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report. Scientometrics 2016;109(3):2129 View
  4. Wang A, An N, Lu X, Chen H, Li C, Levkoff S. A Classification Scheme for Analyzing Mobile Apps Used to Prevent and Manage Disease in Late Life. JMIR mhealth and uhealth 2014;2(1):e6 View
  5. Deng H, Wang J, Liu X, Liu B, Lei J. Evaluating the outcomes of medical informatics development as a discipline in China: A publication perspective. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 2018;164:75 View
  6. Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. On the meaningful and non-meaningful use of reference sets in bibliometrics. Journal of Informetrics 2014;8(1):273 View
  7. Lindahl J, Danell R. The information value of early career productivity in mathematics: a ROC analysis of prediction errors in bibliometricly informed decision making. Scientometrics 2016;109(3):2241 View
  8. Kiah M, Zaidan B, Zaidan A, Nabi M, Ibraheem R. MIRASS: Medical Informatics Research Activity Support System Using Information Mashup Network. Journal of Medical Systems 2014;38(4) View
  9. Bornmann L, Marx W. How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations. Scientometrics 2014;98(1):487 View
  10. Zaorsky N, O’Brien E, Mardini J, Lehrer E, Holliday E, Weisman C. Publication Productivity and Academic Rank in Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Academic Medicine 2020;95(8):1274 View
  11. Witteman H, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C. Gender bias in CIHR Foundation grant awarding. The Lancet 2019;394(10214):e41 View
  12. Sorzano C, Vargas J, Caffarena-Fernández G, Iriarte A. Comparing scientific performance among equals. Scientometrics 2014;101(3):1731 View
  13. Tost C, Rindermann H. Entwicklung von Normwerten zur Evaluation individueller psychologischer Forschungsleistungen in Abhängigkeit vom akademischem Alter und der Fachrichtung. Psychologische Rundschau 2017;68(2):103 View
  14. Nelson A, Gray R, Ruffle J, Watkins H, Herron D, Sorros N, Mikhailov D, Cardoso M, Ourselin S, McNally N, Williams B, Rees G, Nachev P. Deep forecasting of translational impact in medical research. Patterns 2022;3(5):100483 View
  15. Pulsipher K, Szeto M, Rundle C, Presley C, Laughter M, Dellavalle R. Global Burden of Skin Disease Representation in the Literature: Bibliometric Analysis. JMIR Dermatology 2021;4(2):e29282 View
  16. Sadatmoosavi A, Tajedini O, Esmaeili O, Abolhasani Zadeh F, Khazaneha M. Emerging Trends and Thematic Evolution of Breast Cancer: Knowledge Mapping and Co-Word Analysis. JMIR Cancer 2021;7(4):e26691 View