Prolificacy and visibility versus reputation in the hard sciences

Maziar Montazerian, Edgar Dutra Zanotto () and Hellmut Eckert
Additional contact information
Maziar Montazerian: Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar)
Edgar Dutra Zanotto: Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar)
Hellmut Eckert: Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar)

Scientometrics, 2020, vol. 123, issue 1, No 10, 207-221

Abstract: Abstract Some authors (including ourselves) have argued that the research quality of an individual or group has to be evaluated by peer review based on the originality, strength, reproducibility, and relevance of their publications. As a result, a reputation is built up by the community. In this article, we dwell on complementary indicators of a scientist performance—prolificacy and visibility—by critically analyzing a plethora of scientometric data for the hard sciences. Our investigation corroborates the notion that the H-indexes (which correlate to both prolificacy and visibility) of the most prolific and most cited researchers strongly depend on the field of study and increase with the total number of publications, N. Here we use the MZE-index (defined in a previous article) to distinguish the H-indexes of authors that stand at, above or below the average of their field for any number of publications. In addition, we propose a field normalization factor (FNF) which allows one to scale the H-indexes of any author or group belonging to different research fields. While neither the MZE nor FNF- normalized H indices can guarantee quality or reputation, they show how visible by their community a researcher, research group, or institution is. We also explore a potential correlation of prolificacy and visibility with scientific reputation by comparing the performances of the most cited scientists with those of the winners of important awards in five macro-areas of the hard sciences. This comparison reveals strongly field-dependent features, suggesting that citation-based parameters can be useful, complementary scientometric evaluators, but should not be confused with quality.

Keywords: Bibliometrics; Countries; H-index; MZE-index; Citations; Quality (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03369-w Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:123:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03369-w

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03369-w

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().