SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The Third French Alzheimer Plan: analysis of the influence of a national public health initiative on scientific research productivity and impact
4 references·1 citing·25 second hop
The Third French Alzheimer Plan: analysis of the influence of a national public health initiative on scientific research productivity and impact (2015)The Third French Alzheimer Plan: analysis…Scoring of medical publications with SIGAPS software: Application to orthopedics (2014)Scoring of medical publicatio…The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000 (2013)The validation of (advanced) …Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers (2012)Alternatives to the journal i…Quality Versus Quantity: Assessing Individual Research Performance (2011)Quality Versus Quantity: Asse…Evolution of the Research Literature and the Scientific Community of Alzheimer’s Disease from 1983-2017: A 35-Year Survey (2020)Evolution of the Research Lit…Citation Indexing-Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities (1980)A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures (2009)Scientific peer review (2011)How to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date? (2013)Scientific research on bullying and cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going (2015)Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers (2020)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? (2003)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Importance of Quality Assessment in Clinical Research in Japan (2019)Rate of publication in predatory journals by orthopedic surgeons members of the French orthopedic and traumatology society (SOFCOT): A follow-up note (2020)Bibliometric evaluation of negative publications from orthopedics and traumatology from the ten most influential journals of 2009–2010 and 2019–2020: A comparative study with the “Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research” journal, using the same analysis of submitted and accepted articles (2023)Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses (2007)How good is research really? (2012)Part II: Should the h-Index Be Modified? An Analysis of the m-Quotient, Contemporary h-Index, Authorship Value, and Impact Factor (2013)A novel bibliometric index with a simple geometric interpretation (2018)Networks of Scientific Papers (1965)Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation (1972)Science and Engineering Indicators (2004)Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor (2012)The Social Media Editor at Medical Journals: Responsibilities, Goals, Barriers, and Facilitators (2018)Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: what has been learned? (2018)Human population growth and the demographic transition (2009)Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison (2017)Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2013The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000118 cited
  • 2011Quality Versus Quantity: Assessing Individual Research Performance103 cited
  • 2012Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers78 cited
  • 2014Scoring of medical publications with SIGAPS software: Application to orthopedics24 cited

Cited by

  • 2020Evolution of the Research Literature and the Scientific Community of Alzheimer’s Disease from 1983-2017: A 35-Year Survey6 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work