Pages

▼

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

My worst cited paper: supervised self-organizing maps

Amazing! It actually is the paper (doi:10.1021/cg060872y) with the best graphics! Is it really then, that scientists do not care about looks?! Or is this just the curse of Closed Access publishing?


Ping me if you have a nice data set with multiple dependent variables and need some statistics advice!
at

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:09 PM, July 21, 2010

    Hi Egon,
    did you check SCOPUS
    http://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=6507481906

    and Thomson-Reuters
    They have really cool mashup API.
    http://www.researcherid.com

    BTW. According to SCOPUS there are three 0 citation refs. You have to exclude self citations.

    2009
    Bioclipse 2: A scriptable integration platform for the life sciences

    2009
    XMPP for cloud computing in bioinformatics supporting discovery and invocation of asynchronous web services

    2007
    Supervised self-organizing maps in crystal property and structure prediction

    I guess the 2009ers are just too young. But I can not say anything about the crystal stuff. Probably low number of people in the field, compared to AIDS or Cancer research. Anyway there is a medicine.

    Apply the following cure:

    More self citations!


    Interesting to watch with the h-index from SCOPUS or WOS. If you apply "Self citations of all authors" your h-index of 8 stays stable. Even if the number of all citations drops from 351 to
    275.

    However I would say if your h-index drops more than -4 values (I have seen drops up to -8) Then there is probably something fishy.

    FYI if there would be a service like Ohloh (www.ohloh.net), that takes scientific software into account and adds that to your curriculum, I can assure you, you would be a Professor right now and make not less than 100k EuroDollars a year.

    Cheers
    Tobias

    ReplyDelete
  2. Egon Willighagen7:29 PM, July 21, 2010

    I know of one XMPP citation (not by me) not counted yet. I did take that into account in my offline analysis, but did not report about that.

    And what a nice mashup too! Looks very promising! Is it ORCID-based?

    Plus
    * nice, clean design
    * RSS
    * a lot of functionality

    Minus
    * no RDFa
    * a lot behind paywall

    ReplyDelete
  3. Egon Willighagen7:29 PM, July 21, 2010

    BTW, is this preview public? It is now, surely, but is it OK if I spread that URL?

    ReplyDelete