You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The h’-Index, Effectively Improving the h-Index Based on the Citation Distribution
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0059912 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chun-Ting Zhang |
| Abstract |
Although being a simple and effective index that has been widely used to evaluate academic output of scientists, the h-index suffers from drawbacks. One critical disadvantage is that only h-squared citations can be inferred from the h-index, which completely ignores excess and h-tail citations, leading to unfair and inaccurate evaluations in many cases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 27% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 9% |
| Brazil | 1 | 9% |
| Peru | 1 | 9% |
| Belgium | 1 | 9% |
| Ireland | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Scientists | 3 | 27% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 27% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 24% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,391,618
of 24,380,741 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#29,635
of 210,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,617
of 203,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#699
of 5,291 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,380,741 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 203,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,291 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.