Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2019 ) > List of Articles

EDITORIAL

Evaluation of the Quality of Scientific Research

Vlatko Silobrčić

Citation Information : Silobrčić V. Evaluation of the Quality of Scientific Research. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 13 (4):159-161.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1602

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract


PDF Share
  1. Silobrčić V. Can bibliometric and scientometric indicators be useful for evaluating the quality of scientific research. Eur Sci Ed 2001;27:102.
  2. Silobrčić V. Open access to peer reviewed scientific texts-A desirable future for informing scientists. Periodicum biologorum 2005;107(1):117–121.
  3. Peer Review-Its present and future stand, Conference Report, www.esf.org, 2006.
  4. Evaluation of Research and Research Funding Organisations. A report by ESF Member Organisation Forum on Evaluation of Publicly Funded Research, www.esf.org, 2012.
  5. Silobrcic V. How to increase the impact factor of a journal. Donald Sch J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;9(4):357–360. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1422.
  6. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 2005;102(46):16569–16572. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
  7. Harzing A-WK, van der Wal R. Google scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics Sci Env Polit 2008;8:61–73. DOI: 10.3354/esep00076.
  8. Glaenzel W. On the opportunities and limitations of the h-index. Sci Focus 2006;1:10–11.
  9. Egghe L. Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 2006;69:131–152. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7.
  10. Schubert A, Braun T. Relative indicators and relation charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 1986;9(5–6):281–291. DOI: 10.1007/BF02017249.
  11. Schubert A, Glaenzel W, Braun T. Subject field characteristic citation scores and scales for assessing research performance. Scientometrics 1987;12(5–6):267–272. DOI: 10.1007/BF02016664.
  12. Schubert A. Using the h-index for assessing single publication. Scientometrics 2009;78:59. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-008-2208-3.
  13. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Neuhaus C, et al. Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analysing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics Sci Env Polit 2008;8:93–102. DOI: 10.3354/esep00084.
  14. Harnad S. Validating research performance metrics against peer review. Ethics Sci Env Polit 2008;8:103–107. DOI: 10.3354/esep00088.
  15. Giske J. Benefitting from bibliometry. Ethics Sci Env Polit 2008;8: 79–81. DOI: 10.3354/esep00075.
  16. Leydesdorff L. How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? J Amer Soc Informat Sci & Tech 2009;60(7):1327–1336.
  17. Nicolini C, Nozza F. Objective assessment of scientific performances world-wide. Scientometrics 2008;76(3):527–541. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-1786-9.
  18. Todd PA, Ladle RJ. Hidden dangers of a “citation culture”. Ethics Sci Env Polit. 2008;8:13–16. DOI: 10.3354/esep00091.
  19. Zitt M, Bassecoulard E. Challenges for scientometric indicators: data demining, knowledge-flow measurements and diversity issues. Ethics Sci Env Polit 2008;8:49–60. DOI: 10.3354/esep00092.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.