As of August 2024, International Journal "Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets" is being indexed in Scopus.
Please check our Instructions to Authors and send your manuscripts to nifs.journal@gmail.com. Next issue: September/October 2024.
Open Call for Papers: International Workshop on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets • 13 December 2024 • Banska Bystrica, Slovakia/ online (hybrid mode).
Deadline for submissions: 16 November 2024.

Issue:Quantifying individual scientific output in terms of a new intuitionistic fuzzy sets based author-level metrics (IFALM)

From Ifigenia, the wiki for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and generalized nets
Revision as of 15:17, 7 September 2022 by Vassia Atanassova (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{PAGENAME}} {{PAGENAME}} {{PAGENAME}} {{issue/title | title = Quantifying individual scientific output in terms of a new intuitionistic fuzzy sets based author-level metrics (IFALM) | shortcut = nifs/28/3/319-333 }} {{issue/author | author = Vassia Atanassova | institution = Bioinformatics and Mathemati...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
shortcut
http://ifigenia.org/wiki/issue:nifs/28/3/319-333
Title of paper: Quantifying individual scientific output in terms of a new intuitionistic fuzzy sets based author-level metrics (IFALM)
Author(s):
Vassia Atanassova
Bioinformatics and Mathematical Modelling Department, Institute of Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 105 Acad. Georgi Bonchev Str., Sofia 1113, Bulgaria
vassia.atanassova@gmail.com
Published in: Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Volume 28 (2022), Number 3, pages 319–333
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7546/nifs.2022.28.3.319-333
Download:  PDF (937  Kb, File info)
Abstract: The present paper proposes the idea of formulating a new author-level citation metrics, quantifying the individual’s scientific output, which uses the concept of intuitionistic fuzzy sets. This new metrics gives more visibility to the proportion of direct self-citations and hidden (co-author or collaborative) self-citations in the form of an intuitionistic fuzzy pair. Examples are given retrieving the necessary information from Scopus, one of the largest databases of peer-reviewed literature, which algorithmically enables retrieval of one’s citations including and excluding their own or their co-authors’ self-citations, as well as the calculation of three different values of one’s h-index with and without these respectively. Linear and triangular graphical representations are given, as well as comparisons with the concept proposed in 2005 by Jorge E. Hirsch, the now famous h-index, and ideas for future elaboration of the concept of the new intuitionistic fuzzy sets based author-level metrics, or shortly IFALM.
Keywords: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Intuitionistic fuzzy pairs, Bibliometrics, Citations, Self-citation, Scopus, H-index.
AMS Classification: 03E72.
References:
  1. Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87–96.
  2. Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg.
  3. Atanassov, K., Mavrov, D., & Atanassova, V. (2014). Intercriteria Decision Making: A New Approach for Multicriteria Decision Making, Based on Index Matrices and Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Issues in Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Generalized Nets, 11, 1–8.
  4. Atanassov, K., Szmidt, E., & Kacprzyk, J. (2013). On intuitionistic fuzzy pairs. Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, 19(3), 1–13.
  5. Atanassova, V. (2017). New Modified Level Operator N γ Over Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. In: Christiansen, H., Jaudoin, H., Chountas, P., Andreasen, T., & Legind Larsen, H. (eds) Flexible Query Answering Systems. FQAS 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10333, 209–214. Springer, Cham.
  6. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.
  7. Gottman, J. (1995). Why Marriages Succeed or Fail: And How You Can Make Yours Last. Simon and Schuster.333
  8. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 102(46), 16569–16572.
  9. Kaptay, G. (2020). The k-index is introduced to replace the h-index to evaluate better the scientific excellence of individuals. Heliyon, 6(7), Article ID e04415.
  10. Li, H., & Liu, W. (2020). Same same but different: self-citations identified through Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. Scientometrics, 124(3), 2723–2732.
  11. Masic, I., & Begic, E. (2016). Scientometric dilemma: Is h-index adequate for scientific validity of academic’s work? Acta Informatica Medica, 24(4), 228–232.
  12. Peroni, S., Ciancarini, P., Gangemi, A., Giovanni Nuzzolese, A., Poggi, F., & Presutti, V. (2020). The practice of self-citations: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 123(1), 253–282.
  13. Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications, 9(1), 1–59, Article 12.
  14. Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195–1225.
  15. Wallace, M. L., Lariviere, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). A Small World of Citations? The Influence of Collaboration Networks on Citation Practices. PLoS One. 7(3), Article ID e33339.
  16. Zhivotovsky, L. A., & Krutovsky, K. V. (2008). Self-citation can inflate h-index. (Letter to the Editor). Scientometrics, 77(2), 373–375
Citations:

The list of publications, citing this article may be empty or incomplete. If you can provide relevant data, please, write on the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://ifigenia.org/index.php?title=Issue:Quantifying_individual_scientific_output_in_terms_of_a_new_intuitionistic_fuzzy_sets_based_author-level_metrics_(IFALM)&oldid=11304"