H & r block key code

※ Download: H & r block key code The index is designed to improve upon simpler measures such as the total number of citations or publications. This method has not been readily adopted, perhaps because of its complexity. In contrast, if the same publications have 25, 8, 5, 3, and 3, then the index is 3 because the fourth paper has only 3 citations. S and Orton, C. H - Subscription-based databases such as and the provide automated calculators. This article is about the index of scientific research impact. For the economic measure, see. The h-index is an that attempts to measure both the and of the of a or scholar. The index is based on the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications. The index can also be applied to the productivity and impact of a as well as a group of scientists, such as a department or university or country. The index was suggested in 2005 by , a physicist at , as a tool for determining ' relative quality and is sometimes called the Hirsch index or Hirsch number. Thus, the h-index reflects both the number of publications and the number of citations per publication. The index is designed to improve upon simpler measures such as the total number of citations or publications. The index works properly only for comparing scientists working in the same field; citation conventions differ widely among different fields. Formally, if f is the function that corresponds to the number of citations for each publication, we compute the h index as follows. First we order the values of f from the largest to the lowest value. Then, we look for the last position in which f is greater than or equal to the position we call h this position. For example, if we have a researcher with 5 publications A, B, C, D, and E with 10, 8, 5, 4, and 3 citations, respectively, the h index is equal to 4 because the 4th publication has 4 citations and the 5th has only 3. In contrast, if the same publications have 25, 8, 5, 3, and 3, then the index is 3 because the fourth paper has only 3 citations. The h-index serves as an alternative to more traditional journal metrics in the evaluation of the impact of the work of a particular researcher. Because only the most highly cited articles contribute to the h-index, its determination is a simpler process. Hirsch has demonstrated that h has high predictive value for whether a scientist has won honors like membership or the. The h-index can be manually determined using citation databases or using automatic tools. Subscription-based databases such as and the provide automated calculators. Harzing's Publish or Perish program calculates the h-index based on entries. From July 2011 have provided an automatically-calculated h-index and within their own profile. In addition, specific databases, such as the database can automatically calculate the h-index for researchers working in. Each database is likely to produce a different h for the same scholar, because of different coverage. A detailed study showed that the Web of Science has strong coverage of journal publications, but poor coverage of high impact conferences. Scopus has better coverage of conferences, but poor coverage of publications prior to 1996; Google Scholar has the best coverage of conferences and most journals though not all , but like Scopus has limited coverage of pre-1990 publications. The exclusion of conference proceedings papers is a particular problem for scholars in , where conference proceedings are considered an important part of the literature. For example, the Meho and Yang study found that Google Scholar identified 53% more citations than Web of Science and Scopus combined, but noted that because most of the additional citations reported by Google Scholar were from low-impact journals or conference proceedings, they did not significantly alter the relative ranking of the individuals. It has been suggested that in order to deal with the sometimes wide variation in h for a single academic measured across the possible citation databases, one should assume false negatives in the databases are more problematic than false positives and take the maximum h measured for an academic. A value of about 18 could mean a full professorship, 15—20 could mean a fellowship in the , and 45 or higher could mean membership in the. Among 36 new inductees in the National Academy of Sciences in biological and biomedical sciences in 2005, the median h-index was 57. However, he points out that values of h will vary between different fields. During the period January 1, 2000 — February 28, 2010, a physicist had to receive 2073 citations to be among the most cited 1% of physicists in the world. Therefore, these disciplines have lower citation thresholds in the Essential Science Indicators, with the lowest citation thresholds observed in social sciences 154 , computer science 149 , and multidisciplinary sciences 147. Numbers are very different in social science disciplines: The Impact of the Social Sciences team at found that social scientists in the United Kingdom had lower average h-indices. On average across the disciplines, a professor in the social sciences had an h-index about twice that of a lecturer or a senior lecturer, though the difference was the smallest in geography. Hirsch intended the h-index to address the main disadvantages of other bibliometric indicators, such as total number of papers or total number of citations. Total number of papers does not account for the quality of scientific publications, while total number of citations can be disproportionately affected by participation in a single publication of major influence for instance, methodological papers proposing successful new techniques, methods or approximations, which can generate a large number of citations , or having many publications with few citations each. The h-index is intended to measure simultaneously the quality and quantity of scientific output. There are a number of situations in which h may provide misleading information about a scientist's output: Most of these however are not exclusive to the h-index. It has been stated that citation behavior in general is affected by field-dependent factors, which may invalidate comparisons not only across disciplines but even within different fields of research of one discipline. However, this finding was contradicted by another study by Hirsch. Further information: Various proposals to modify the h-index in order to emphasize different features have been made. As the variants have proliferated, comparative studies have become possible showing that most proposals are highly correlated with the original h-index, although alternative indexes may be important to decide between comparable CVs, as often the case in evaluation processes. It was found that the distribution of the h-index, although it depends on the field, can be normalized by a simple rescaling factor. This method has not been readily adopted, perhaps because of its complexity. It might be simpler to divide citation counts by the number of authors before ordering the papers and obtaining the h-index, as originally suggested by Hirsch. A scientific institution has a successive Hirsch-type-index of i when at least i researchers from that institution have an h-index of at least i. The three h 2 metrics measure the relative area within a scientist's citation distribution in the low impact area, h 2 lower, the area captured by the h-index, h 2 center, and the area from publications with the highest visibility, h 2 upper. Scientists with high h 2 upper percentages are perfectionists, whereas scientists with high h 2 lower percentages are mass producers. As these metrics are percentages, they are intended to give a qualitative description to supplement the quantitative h-index. One can be easily convinced that ranking in coauthorship networks should take into account both measures to generate a realistic and acceptable ranking. It is possible to try the predictions using an online tool. However, later work has shown that since h-index is a cumulative measure, it contains intrinsic auto-correlation that led to significant overestimation of its predictability. Thus, the true predictability of future h-index is much lower compared to what has been claimed before. When compared with a video creator's total view count, the h-index and g-index better capture both productivity and impact in a single metric. It was introduced in July 2011 by as part of their work on. Of course this method does not deal with academic age bias. Retrieved 13 May 2010. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Retrieved 13 May 2010. Archived from on 5 May 2010. Retrieved 13 May 2010. Impact of Social Sciences. Laboratoire d'Informatique de Grenoble RR-LIG-2008 technical report Report. S and Killworth, P. S and Orton, C. IBM Research Report R109002. Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management — CIKM '10. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Eugene; Succi, Sauro 2011. It was introduced in July 2011 by as part of their work on. Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management — CIKM '10. A detailed study showed that the Web of Science has strong coverage of journal publications, but poor coverage of high impact conferences. A value of about 18 could mean a full professorship, 15—20 could mean a fellowship in theand 45 or higher could mean membership in the. Retrieved 13 May 2010. However, he points out that values of h will vary between different fields. Among 36 new inductees in the National Academy of Sciences in biological and biomedical sciences in 2005, the median h-index was 57. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Scientists with high h 2 upper percentages are perfectionists, whereas scientists with high h 2 lower percentages are mass producers.