How to increase your papers’ citations and H-index

Alain Dufresne

UMR 5518 CNRS / Grenoble Institute of Technology (Grenoble INP), France

Grenoble – Capital of the French Alps

Background

1985. B.Sc. Physics/Microelectronics, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France

1987. M.Sc. Solid State Physics, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France

1988. M.Sc. Chemical Engineering, Polytechnic, Montréal, Canada

1991. PhD Electronics, National Institute of Applied Sciences, Toulouse, France

1991-92. Post-Doc, Polytechnic, Montréal, Canada

1992-93. Associate Professor, National Institute of Applied Sciences, Lyon, France

1993-2001. Associate Professor, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France

2001-2003. Professor, Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France

Since 2003. Professor, Grenoble Institute of Technology, France

2006. Visiting Professor, Zhejiang University & Wuhan University, China

2009-2010. Visiting Professor, Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

2011. Visiting Professor, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

2014-2016. Visiting Professor, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária

(EMBRAPA), Embrapa Agroindústria Tropical, Fortaleza, Brazil

Outlines

-The structure of a scientific paper

-The choice of the journal

Impact factor

H-index

Scientific literature

"The man of science appears to be the only

person who has something to say just now, and

the only man who does not know how to say it"

Sir James Matthew Barrie - 1929

Scientific literature - History

1665 Origin of scientific papers

1600s and 1700s Letters and experimental (descriptive) formats coexisted

1800s (second half) Increasing method descriptions ("theory-experiment-discussion")

1900s (early) Organized as in book chapters (heading according to subject)

1900s (second half) Adoption of IRMaD format

IMRaD ?

IMRaD structure is currently the most prominent norm for the structure of a scientific paper.IMRaD is an acronym for Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion.Scientific papers are typically divided into the following sections:

I = Introduction,M = Methods,R = Results,a = andD = Discussion.

This so-called “IMRaD” structure is not an arbitrary publication format but rather a direct reflection of the process of scientific discovery. Long articles may need subheadings within some sections (especially Results and Discussion) to clarify their content.It has proved successful because it facilitates literature review, allowing readers to navigate articles more quickly to locate material relevant to their purpose. It also allows information to be presented clearly and logically, by summarizing the research process in an ideal sequence and without unnecessary detail

History in 1900s

Up to 1945 Titles as in book chapters

1950 to 1960 IMRaD structure partially adopted

After 1965 IMRaD began to predominate

1979 IMRaD introduced as standard by American National Standards Institute

1980s Absolute leadership of IRMaD

The structure of a scientific paper

• Table of Contents (TOC) / Graphical abstract - required by some journals.• Title, authors, affiliation, corresponding author.• Abstract (100-200 words)• Keywords (2-5)• Introduction – Why did you start ?• Methods – What did you do ?• Results – What did you find ?

and• Discussion – What doest it all mean ?• Conclusion• Acknowledgment (financial support, experimental support)• References, collection of Tables and Figures (with captions)

Table of content (TOC) - Graphical abstract

Not all journals require a graphical abstract.

A graphical abstract should summarize the contents of the paper in a concise, pictorial form designed to capture the attention of a wide readership and for compilation of databases.

Consists of carefully drawn figures that serve to illustrate the theme of the paper.

Authors may also provide appropriate text, generally not exceeding 30 words.

The content of the graphical abstract will be typeset and should be kept within a specified area (typically 8 × 5 cm).

Authors must supply the graphic separately as an electronic file.

Not all journals require a graphical abstract.

A graphical abstract should summarize the contents of the paper in a concise, pictorial form designed to capture the attention of a wide readership and for compilation of databases.

Consists of carefully drawn figures that serve to illustrate the theme of the paper.

Authors may also provide appropriate text, generally not exceeding 30 words.

The content of the graphical abstract will be typeset and should be kept within a specified area (typically 8 × 5 cm).

Authors must supply the graphic separately as an electronic file.

Table of content (TOC) - Graphical abstract

Table of content (TOC) - Graphical abstract

Table of content (TOC) - Graphical abstract

Table of content (TOC) - Graphical abstract

Table of content (TOC) - Graphical abstract

Table of content (TOC) - Graphical abstract

Abstract

What did I do in a nutshell ?

An abstract is a shortened version of the paper and should contain all information necessary for the reader to determine:

(1) what the objectives of the study were;(2) how the study was done;(3) what results were obtained;(4) and the significance of the results.

Frequently, readers of a scientific journal will only read the abstract, choosing to read at length those papers that are most interesting to them. For this reason, and because abstracts are frequently made available to scientists by various computer abstracting services, this section should be written carefully and succinctly to have the greatest impact in as few words as possible.Although it appears as the first section in a paper, most scientists write the abstract section last.

Abstract

Objectives

How the study was done

Results obtained

Significance of the results

Introduction

Introduction - Why was the study undertaken? What is the state of the art on the subject? What was the research question, the tested hypothesis or the purpose of the research? What is the novelty of the proposed paper?

Brief and arresting (2 pages). It should provide adequate information to allow reader to understand and evaluate the present study without referring to previous publications.

Introduction

Topic : It is defining the subject in context and to present his interest.

Problematic: It is the purpose of the report issued as a question. Key references to support background information should be provided. Define lacunae and shortcomings in current state of knowledge. The problem will guide the rest of the report.

Hypothesis: It is the resolution of the problem. Refer to your previous work and closely related papers appearing elsewhere.

Methodology : It is the description of the process of data collection (related issues) and analysis. Define nature and scope of problem, but do not hide the inconvenient facts.

Introduction

Topic : It is defining the subject in context and to present his interest.

Problematic: It is the purpose of the report issued as a question. Key references to support background information should be provided. Define lacunae and shortcomings in current state of knowledge. The problem will guide the rest of the report.

Hypothesis: It is the resolution of the problem. Refer to your previous work and closely related papers appearing elsewhere.

Methodology : It is the description of the process of data collection (related issues) and analysis. Define nature and scope of problem, but do not hide the inconvenient facts.

Introduction

“Funneling” down

Organization: It is a brief overview of the structure of the report (subject divided by theme, chronology, etc.).

• Provide rationale for current study

What gap in knowledge did you try to fill ?

What controversy did you try to resolve ?

• State aim of study

• May briefly state study group, design and methods used, especially why these are better than in previous studies.

The introduction section is VERY important. It should make the Editor, the Reviewers and the readers want to read the paper.

Introduction

Introduction

Problematic

Methodology

Hypothesis

Topic

Introduction

Introduction

Problematic

Topic

Introduction

Methodology

Hypothesis

Introduction - Common mistakes

• History starting from Adam

• Details of previous studies

• Too long

• Abbreviations without full form

• Details of Results and Conclusions

• Intermix with Discussion

Methods - Experimental section

Methods - How was the study done? What materials were used and which methods of characterization? This section should enable anyone to reproduce the experiments.

The three questions

• What has been done ?

• What did you look for ?

• How was it done ?

Should be reproducible by another group

Methods - Experimental section

Materials and chemicals: origin, composition, purity, supplier

Preparation: should be as precise as possible (conditions, duration, temperature, etc.)

Experimental methods: type of equipment (manufacturer), measurement conditions (if standard, give reference, and if new or modified, provide details (sufficient for reproduction by other researchers)), number of samples tested, reproducibility, data generated and collected, exploitation of the data

Results

What answer was found to the research question; what did the study find? Was the tested hypothesis true?

Typically 3 pages

• Presentation of the data (should be based on the assumption): what did you find ?

• Should answer all points raised in Methods

• No new parameters

Results

• Should include Figures (graphs and schemes), tables and references to figures and/or tables in the text: (Fig. 1) or (Table 1)

• No mismatch in numbers between text and tables / figures

• Cause of incomplete data, if any (sample lost, incomplete study)

• No repetition between text and tables

• Restrict decimal points to the precision of the measurement and provide error bars

Discussion

What might the answer mean and why does it matter? How does it fit in with what other researchers have found? What are the perspectives for future research?

Typically 2 pages

• Recapitulation of major findings

• Discussion (interpretation and analysis) of major findings in light of available data

• Discussion of important minor findings

Discussion

• This analysis must address the issue and support the hypothesis

• Made references to your readings and put together in a broad context

• Alternative explanations

• Strengths and limitations of study (significance)

• Implications of findings

• Unanswered questions and future research

Discussion - common mistakes

• First study in The World / Malaysia / Bangi (megalomania)

• Repeating results

• Emphasizing strengths of study over its weaknesses

• Inflating importance of findings

• Going beyond evidence and drawing unjustified conclusions

Conclusion

1 paragraph – up to 1 page

• Reminder of the problem

• Summary of the results and analysis report

• Validation of the hypothesis and answer to the problem

Acknowledgments

Acknowledge research contributions by people other than the authors

• Persons who gave scientific guidance, participated in discussions, or shared unpublished results

• Persons who provided help during the research (e.g., providing language help, writing assistance or proof reading the article, etc.)

• Persons who provided samples or equipment• Assistants or students who helped do the work• Technicians at user facilities or labs• Give the name of the funding agency and grant

or contract number

Acknowledgments

Non-research contributions are generally not appropriate

for acknowledgment in a scientific paper, but….

Scientific citation

• Format depends on the journal (instructions for authors)

• Books

• Articles

• WEB site: the date of consultation should be given

Additional common mistakes

Should avoid using the personal pronoun (I and us) because of their subjectivity. Rather, it is necessary that the data speak ...For example, "according to the study, 9 out of 10 students improved their understanding of the concept of "environment“ through reading of newspapers“ (Reference).

Consistency : English (UK) or English (USA).

Which journal ?

• Read carefully the scope of the journal.

• Try to estimate the quality of the article to target the appropriate journal (several attempts possible).

• Single submission : you have to attest that the manuscript is not submitted for publication in another journal.

• After choosing, you must carefully follow the instructions for authors

Submission

With the manuscript you have to submit :

• A cover letter that is intended to show to the Editor the relevance of the submitted manuscript

• A list of suggested potential Reviewers

Cover letter

Decision

Accepted

Rejected Major revisions

Minor revisions

Submission

Rejected by

the Editor

Sent to

reviewers

Decision

Accepted

Rejected Major revisions

Minor revisions

Submission

Rejected by

the Editor

Sent to

reviewers

Accepted by

the Editor

Decision

Which journal ? Journal impact factor

IF identifies the frequency with which an average article from a journal is cited in a given year.

Used to evaluate or compare a journal’s relative importance to others in the same field or see how frequently articles are cited to determine which journals may be better for your collection.

Journal Impact Factor is from Journal Citation Report (JCR), a product of Thomson ISI (Institute for Scientific Information). JCR provides quantitative tools for evaluating journals. The IF is one of these; it is a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a given period of time.

The IF for a journal is calculated based on a three-year period, and can be considered to be the average number of times published papers are cited up to two years after publication.

Journal impact factor

The impact factor 2015 for a journal would be calculated as follows:

A = the number of times articles published in 2013-2014 were cited in indexed journals during 2015

B = the number of articles, reviews, proceedings or notes published in 2013-2014

Note : the IF2014 will be actually published in 2015, because it could not be calculated until all of the 2014 publications had been received. IF 2015 will be published in 2016

IF of journals can be found on their websites

IF 2015 = A/B

Journal impact factor

Five-Year Impact FactorThe Five-Year Impact Factor is the average number of times articles from the journal published in the last five years have been cited in the JCR year. This metric can be used to better gauge the impact of journals in fields where the influence of published research evolves over a longer period of time.

Immediacy IndexThe Immediacy Index measures how frequently the average article from a journal is cited within the same year as publication. This number is useful for evaluating journals that publish cutting-edge research.

Cited Half-lifeThe cited half-life benchmarks the age of cited articles by showing the number of years back from the current year that account for 50% of the total number of citations to a journal in the current year. This number is useful in making collection management and archiving decisions. A publisher may use this number to adjust editorial policies to compete in different market segments.

Journal Impact Factor 2009 Five-Year Impact

Factor

Journal Impact Factor

2009

Five-Year Impact

Factor

Biomacromolecules 4.502 5.054 Journal of Physical Chemistry B 3.471 4.581

BioResources 1.406 1.426 Journal of Polymer Science Part B-

Polymer Physics

1.586 1.998

Canadian Journal of Chemistry 1.423 1.403 Journal of Thermal Analysis 1.587 1.445

Carbohydrate Polymers 3.167 3.469 Langmuir 3.898 4.363

Carbohydrate Research 2.025 2.166 Macromolecular Bioscience 3.108 3.630

Cellulose 2.156 2.257 Macromolecular Materials and

Engineering

1.742 1.931

Cellulose Chemistry and

Technology

0.320 0.347 Macromolecular Symposia 0.913 —

Composite Interfaces 0.670 0.886 Macromolecules 4.539 4.769

Composites Part A 2.410 2.753 Materials Chemistry and Physics 2.015 2.264

Composites Science and

Technology

2.901 3.225 Molecular Crystals and Liquid Crystals 0.451 0.480

Electrochimica Acta 3.325 3.562 Molecules 1.738 1.608

European Polymer Journal 2.310 2.672 Polymer 3.573 3.710

Food Research International 2.414 2.964 Polymer Engineering and Science 1.248 1.607

Industrial Crops and Products 2.103 2.378 Polymers for Advanced Technologies 1.532 1.883

International Journal of biological

Macromolecules

2.366 2.407 Polymer Composites 1.194 1.455

Journal of Applied Polymer

Science

1.203 1.360 Revue Roumaine de Chimie 0.263 0.306

Journal of Biobased Materials and

Bioenergy

1.402 1.402 Rheologica Acta 1.882 1.802

Journal of Materials Chemistry 4.795 5.257 Solid State Communications 1.837 1.721

Journal of Materials Science 1.471 1.536 Synthetic Metals 1.901 2.199

Journal of Nanoscience and

Nanotechnology

1.435 1.756 Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C: Journal

of Biosciences

0.800 0.959

Journal Impact Factor

Journal impact factor

WHO USES IT and WHY:

Librarians can support, evaluate and document the value of their library research investments.

Publishers can determine journals’ influence in the marketplace, to review editorial policies and strategic direction, monitor competitors, and identify new opportunities.

Authors and editors can identify the most appropriate, influential journals in which to publish.

Researchers can discover where to find the current reading list in their respective fields.

Information analysts and bibliometricians can track bibliometric and citation trends and patterns.

Publication goals

So, it is important to

• Perform a good and innovative research

• Publish your research in the highest IF journal as possible to be read by the highest number of researchers working in the same field

• To be cited !!!

Citation data indexes

Articles

Citation Impact

Authors

Number of papers (Quantity)

Number of Citations (Quality)

Average number of citations/article

h-index

H-index

The h-index is an index that attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the published work of a scientist or scholar.

It is based on the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other people's publications.

It can also be applied to the productivity and impact of a group of scientists, such as a department or university or country. The index was suggested in 2005 by Jorge E. Hirsch, a physicist at UCSD, as a tool for determining theoretical physicists’ relative quality and is sometimes called the Hirsch index or Hirsch number.

Hirsch, J. E. "An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output".

PNAS 102 (46): 16569–16572 (2005).

H-index

The index is based on the distribution of citations received by a given researcher's publications

A scientist has index h if h of [his/her] Np papers have at least h citations each, and the other (Np − h)

papers have at most h citations each

In other words, a scholar with an index of hhas published h papers each of which has

been cited by others at least h times.

H-index

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.

The h-index serves as an alternative to more traditional journal impact factor metrics in the evaluation of the impact of the work of a particular researcher.

H-index

Because only the most highly cited articles contribute to the h-index, its determination is a relatively simpler process.

Hirsch has demonstrated that h has high predictive value for whether a scientist has won honors like National Academy membership or the Nobel Prize.

In physics, a moderately productive scientist should have an h equal to the number of years of research while biomedical scientists tend to have higher values.

The h-index grows as citations accumulate and thus it depends on the 'academic age' of a researcher.

H-index

It could be used for an specific Author:

– Evaluate the Research Performance of Author

Or could be used for a group of Papers of an institution, department or journal which

– Evaluate the Impact of the group of special papers

H-index - Advantages

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

H-index - Advantages

The h-index is intended to measure simultaneously the quality and sustainability of scientific output, as well as, to some extent, the diversity of scientific research

The h-index is much less affected by methodological papers proposing successful new techniques, methods or approximations, which can generate a large number of citations

H-index - Drawbacks

The h-index does not account for the number of authors of a paper. Even in the absence of explicit gaming, the h-index tends to favor fields with larger groups, e.g. experimental over theoretical.

Like IF it depends on subject area. Different fields, or journals, traditionally use different numbers of citations.

The h-index discards the information contained in author placement in the authors' list, which in some scientific fields (but not in high energy physics, where Hirsch works) is significant.

H-index - Drawbacks

The h-index is bounded to the total number of publications and is therefore a growing function over time. Scientifics with short scientific life are out of competition. This is also a problem for any measure that relies on the number of publications.

It does NOT show the current activity or inactivity of the author

It does not consider the context of citations: citations in a paper are often made simply to flesh out an introduction, otherwise having no other significance to the work, or citations made in a negative context

H-index - Drawbacks

The h-index gives books the same count as articles making it difficult to compare scholars in fields that are more book-oriented such as the humanities.

The h-index does not account for confounding factors such as "gratuitous authorship", the so-called Matthew effect, and the favorable citation bias associated with review articles. Again, this is a problem for all other metrics using publications or citations.

The h-index is a natural number which reduces its discriminatory power. A rational h-index that interpolates between h and h+1 has been proposed.

Citation databases

Web of Science (WoS)

Scopus

Google Scholar

Web of Science

Excellent depth of coverage in the full product (from 1900-present for some journals)

A large number of the records are enhanced with cited references

Regional journal coverage has been improved

The first database to incorporate the h-index (using a good graphical display)

You can see the h-index minus self citations this only removes them for the first author

Conference proceedings coverage has improved

Web of Science

Coverage of journal titles is not as wide as Scopus

Better coverage of sciences than arts and humanities

Does not cover monographs in any depth

Facilities for finding and distinguishing between authors are not great in the product

Scopus

Includes a high number of journal titles

Covers some books and conference proceedings

Very strong coverage of science and technology journals and full medicine coverage

Contains useful tools for author disambiguation

Automatically generates the h-index

Scopus

Depth of coverage is not as impressive as the width, many journals are only covered for the last 5 years

Relatively poor coverage of arts and humanities (recently improved somewhat as more journals added)

The citations and calculation based on them are only available from publications since 1996. This results in a very skewed h-index for researchers with longer careers than this

Citations to pre-1996 articles in articles published after 1996 are not included in the h-index calculation

Google Scholar

Covers not only journals but academic websites, grey literature, pre-prints, theses, etc.

Also includes books from the Google Books project

Includes electronic-only publications

Adds a record to the database for every cited work found so that these are directly visible in the results list which is not limited to the originally choice of indexed titles and sites

Google Scholar

Does not provide a list of journals and other items covered (peer reviewed or otherwise)

Does not indicate the timescale covered

Covers some non-scholarly or research level sources e.g. course reading lists, student projects

Poorer coverage of print-only material than rivals

Difficult to distinguish between authors who have the same initials in this product, so a lot of manual check and pruning of results sets in needed

Results often contain duplicates of the same article (usually as pre-prints and post-prints) due to the wide range of sources

H-index - A. Dufresne

H-index - A. Dufresne

73

No of articles

h-index

plot

No of citations

H-index - A. Dufresne

H-index - A. Dufresne

H-index - A. Dufresne

H-index - A. Dufresne

H-index - A. Dufresne

Why high citation?

Most articles published in high impact journal (Q1)– Macromolecules (IF = 5.800)

– Biomacromolecules (IF = 5.750)

– Carbohydrate Polymer (IF = 4.074)

– Cellulose (IF = 3.573)

– Polymer (IF = 3.562)

– European Polymer Journals (IF = 3.005)

– Industrial Crops and Products (IF = 2.837)

– ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces (IF = 6.723)

– Langmuir (IF = 4.457)

– Nanoscale (IF = 7.394)

Conclusion

It’s important to

Make a good and innovative research

Promote collaborations (networking)

Be able to present precisely and attractively the results

Try to publish these results in high IF journals

Be cited – If your research is innovative and generates interest you will be cited as the first to have be the

first to have opened this avenue of research

Be lucky…

International co-authored publications

European co-authored publications

Abide by instructions, but …

Abide by instructions, but a little liberty is sometimes in order

Scientific communication need not be so boring!