If you are interesed in the citations of Bozho's
publications, you can view their (partial) list as a dvi, ps,
or pdf file. The LaTeX tex source file is also available, but one will need the BibTeX file Bozho-BiBTeX-Published-Works.bib
for resolving the references contained in it.
Please note, the above list is compiled from the following
Remarks and Observations
There are different and generally
non-equivalent or/and non-overlapping methods for evaluating the
quality and impact of a scientific work.
The most reliable one is the test of time, only
the really significant contributions leave their footprints in the established
and experimentally checked base of Science; there are thousands of such
examples. However, the problem here is that there should past long periods
of time, e.g. tens or even hundreds of years, to become clear which papers
should be forgotten, or are of pure historical interest, or remain in current
usage in the Science.
In the last 50—80 years, it seems that the citation
of a scientific work is one of the factors that indicates its (relative)
importance for relatively short periods of time, e.g. from several
months to 3—6 years. In general, if the citing of a paper continues for
longer time, for instance for more than 5—8 years, this points to significant
result(s) contained in it.
Important points to note when evaluating a scientists via citations of his/her papers
- How the citations of person's publications reflect his/her real contribution to Science?
- the simple count of citations without
further details contributes only to the citation statistics of a particular
- a criterion is needed to make a distinction between different cited papers and to select the most importent ones of them
- it seems the more a particular paper has been cited, the bigger is its impact to Science, but how big?
- it seems the more citations has an author, the bigger is his/her impact in Science, but how big?
- How many are the authors of the cited paper and of the citing one?
- if there is no information about the particular contribution of each author, then a paper with N authors with M citations brings M/N citations for any particular its author
- if a work contains info about the contributions of each its author, then the citations of the paper should be distributed to its authors according to this data
- above is assumed that the number of authors of the citing papers is of no significance which is implicitly assumed practically everywhere
- if a citing paper has K authors and K>1, then to such a citation should be given more weight
- if a cited paper has N authors, there is no information about the contributions of each author and this paper is cited by a work with K authors, then to any author of the cited paper can be assigned K/N citations from such citing paper. Here is asumed the followin hypotheses:
All authors of a citing paper have
equal acquaintance with all references continued in it if it is not stated
explicitly something else in the paper. Of course, this hypotheses has its own limitations and seems to break down for papers with "quite large" numger of authors.
- Highly cited works:
- What is the criterion to call a paper "highly cited"? It definitely should depend on the particular author; for one this may mean, e.g., at least 37 citations but for other - at least 463 citations.
- to such papers should be given more weight as they point to more significan contributions
- Different weights may be assigned to different types of publications:
- original research article
- review paper
- collection of papers
- Should different editions/versions of a work be distinguished?
- different (revised) editions of a book/monograph, textbook, handbook, ...
- versions of a work in verious publications like: (full text) conference proceedings, preprint, electronic preprint, journal article, in collection of paprers, web page publication, (extended) presentation/report, etc.
- in most cases an electronic preprint and its journal version are (almost) identical
- a criterion is needed when two or more publications to be considered as different works; e.g. when they differ more then 20% or contain essentially different results/corrections
- if a work is contained entirely in a subsequent paper, then the catations of the former one can be concidered as citations of the latter one but not vice versa in the general case
- if several publications are considered as indistinguishable versions of a sigle work, then the citations of this work should be the sum of the citations of all its versions
- In what field of the society is the contribution?
- pure science, theory, experiment, ...
- engineering, technology
- popular science for scientists or other people
- How to treat the self citations?
- the self-citations are ignored usually in most accounts, but is this correct?
- an honest scientists cites his/her own works only if this is really necessary
- extensive self-citation may mean different things like: ignoring or not knowing other works, aiming to raise the own rating, there are not (many) other works on the subject, the work is quite new and original, ...
- if a citing paper has sevaral coauthoors including author(s) of the cited work and sombody else, then is this a self-citation for the author(s) of the cited work and how to proceed with such citations?
- in any case, not all self-citation should be rejected
- In what aspect a paper is cited?
- negative citation criticizing a paper or pointing error(s) or plagiarism(s) in it
- mentioning of a work in a general list of references on some item in
the introduction/conclusion of an investigation
- application of particular result(s) of a given work
- following/devloping method(s) introduced in the paper cited
- What is the distribution of the citations of a paper in time?
- a lot of citations for a short period of time and then (almost) no citations
- relatively constant citation per unit time for a long period of time
- peaks and downs for a long time
- What is the distribution of all citations of a person in time?
- normal (in statistical sense)
- peaks followed by exponential downfalls
- relativly constant for a long period of time
- What is the state of the field to which the cited work belongs?
- rapidly developing
- "there is nothing to do in it"
- (relativly) new
- (quite) old with established ground
- revived old theory
- How can be compared the achievements of scientists working in different branches of Science?
- e.g. in or between great branches like Natural science (Physical science and Life science), Social sciences, Formal sciences, and Applied science?
- e.g. in particular different sciences like Medicine, Physics, Seismology, Computer science, Ecology, Mathematics, and Zoology?
- the pure number of citations strongly depends on the branch of Science and is inadequate for the goal without modifications
- the pure number of published works is unsuitable
- the h-index, hm-index and similar metrics are not appropriate
- the problem seems open
It is a sad fact that with some exaptions the formal contributions of a person in Science are based only on the nmber of his/her published papers and the number of their citations. Only in 2005-2009 were made attempts to change this situation by introducing the
hm-index (see also arXiv:0903.4960 [physics.soc-ph]) and other similar metrics some of which can be calculated via the Publish or Perish program which uses the Google Scholar database. The work in this direction seems to be at its beginning and until now only points 1—3 above have been taken partially into account.
For these and other reasons, a simple list of citations should be considered critically until the citations in it are evaluated one by one and a general opinion on the contribution(s) of an author (or his/her particular result(s)) is formed on the ground of a citation list.