BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Ruth Fairclough

Ruth Fairclough appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Digital Libraries

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works
1topics
1close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

All downhill from the PhD? The typical impact trajectory of US academic careers

Within academia, mature researchers tend to be more senior, but do they also tend to write higher impact articles? This article assesses long-term publishing (16+ years) United States (US) researchers, contrasting them with shorter-term publishing researchers (1, 6 or 10 years). A long-term US researcher is operationalised as having a first Scopus-indexed journal article in exactly 2001 and one in 2016-2019, with US main affiliations in their first and last articles. Researchers publishing in large teams (11+ authors) were excluded. The average field and year normalised citation impact of long- and shorter-term US researchers' journal articles decreases over time relative to the national average, with especially large falls to the last articles published that may be at least partly due to a decline in self-citations. In many cases researchers start by publishing above US average citation impact research and end by publishing below US average citation impact research. Thus, research managers should not assume that senior researchers will usually write the highest impact papers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles

Journal impact factors (JIFs) are widely used and promoted but have important limitations. In particular, JIFs can be unduly influenced by individual highly cited articles and hence are inherently unstable. A logical way to reduce the impact of individual high citation counts is to use the geometric mean rather than the standard mean in JIF calculations. Based upon journal rankings 2004-2014 in 50 sub-categories within 5 broad categories, this study shows that journal rankings based on JIF variants tend to be more stable over time if the geometric mean is used rather than the standard mean. The same is true for JIF variants using Mendeley reader counts instead of citation counts. Thus, although the difference is not large, the geometric mean is recommended instead of the arithmetic mean for future JIF calculations. In addition, Mendeley readership-based JIF variants are as stable as those using Scopus citations, confirming the value of Mendeley readership as an academic impact indicator.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

More Precise Methods for National Research Citation Impact Comparisons

Governments sometimes need to analyse sets of research papers within a field in order to monitor progress, assess the effect of recent policy changes, or identify areas of excellence. They may compare the average citation impacts of the papers by dividing them by the world average for the field and year. Since citation data is highly skewed, however, simple averages may be too imprecise to robustly identify differences within, rather than across, fields. In response, this article introduces two new methods to identify national differences in average citation impact, one based on linear modelling for normalised data and the other using the geometric mean. Results from a sample of 26 Scopus fields between 2009-2015 show that geometric means are the most precise and so are recommended for smaller sample sizes, such as for individual fields. The regression method has the advantage of distinguishing between national contributions to internationally collaborative articles, but has substantially wider confidence intervals than the geometric mean, undermining its value for any except the largest sample sizes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores

Although various citation-based indicators are commonly used to help research evaluations, there are ongoing controversies about their value. In response, they are often correlated with quality ratings or with other quantitative indicators in order to partly assess their validity. When correlations are calculated for sets of publications from multiple disciplines or years, however, the magnitude of the correlation coefficient may be reduced, masking the strength of the underlying correlation. In response, this article uses simulations to systematically investigate the extent to which mixing years or disciplines reduces correlations. The results show that mixing two sets of articles with different correlation strengths can reduce the correlation for the combined set to substantially below the average of the two. Moreover, even mixing two sets of articles with the same correlation strength but different mean citation counts can substantially reduce the correlation for the combined set. The extent of the reduction in correlation also depends upon whether the articles assessed have been pre-selected for being high quality and whether the relationship between the quality ratings and citation counts is linear or exponential. The results underline the importance of using homogeneous data sets but also help to interpret correlation coefficients when this is impossible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access