Back

fCite: a fractional citation tool to quantify an individual’s scientific research output

Kozlowski, L. P.

2019-09-21 scientific communication and education
10.1101/771485 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Here, I present the fCite web service (fcite.org) a tool for the in-depth analysis of an individuals scientific research output. While multiple existing tools (e.g., Google Scholar, iCite, Microsoft Academic) focus on the total number of citations and the H-index, I propose the analysis of the research output by considering multiple metrics to provide greater insight into a scientists multifaceted profile. The most distinguishing feature of fCite is its ability to calculate fractional scores for most of the metrics currently in use. Thanks to the division of citations (and RCR scores) by the number of authors, the tool provides a more detailed analysis of a scholars portfolio. fCite is based on PUBMED data (~18 million publications), and the statistics are calculated with respect to ORCID data (~600,000 user profiles).

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 6%
13.2%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 3%
8.1%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 6%
8.1%
Similar papers in this journal
4
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 23%
6.9%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Patterns
○ 78 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Heliyon
○ 152 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.4%
7
BMC Medical Research Methodology
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS Biology
● 486 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.1%
9
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
10
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
11
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.0%
12
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.8%
13
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
○ 31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
FASEB BioAdvances
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
16
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 30%
1.5%
17
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.4%
18
BioData Mining
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
19
FEBS Letters
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
20
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.4%
21
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
22
Research Synthesis Methods
○ 20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
23
Journal of Cheminformatics
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
24
Conservation Biology
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
25
Nature Human Behaviour
○ 95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
26
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
27
The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters
● 63 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
28
npj Digital Medicine
○ 118 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.