I also find Tenurometer quite interesting, because it is much more
comprehensive than other citation-based tools (Scopus, Web of
Science), as it takes into account citations to a large spectrum of
document types (conference papers, book chapters, preprints, even
blog entries), though all types are included by default in what is
called "Number of Articles" in the prominently displayed "Impact
Analysis" field.
But, as I realized when I tested it with my own name (of course) and
one of my colleague's from a completely different field, one has to
filter out all irrelevant entries : not just namesakes, but also
redundant entries, documents that cannot be qualified as "articles"
or "article-like" (like blog entries or technical reports), and
outright "junk" (for example, articles by other authors).
But this is quite to be expected, as it they explain in the site's
FAQ :
"Tenurometer gets raw data from Google Scholar, which is based on
automatic crawling, parsing, and indexing algorithms, and therefore
the data is subject to noise, errors, and incomplete or outdated
citation information. Through the Tenurometer interface you can
remove noisy results."
Indeed one can easily check out all superfluous entries, and the
statistics are adjusted accordingly.
So, once this filtering task is done (buy this could be tedious with
hundreds of entries), Tenurometer sure gives you a better (and much
more up-to-date) measure of your impact in your field than the other
similar tools.
But I would hesitate to use it in any official way : the dean is no
fool (or so we hope).
Marc Couture
De : American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
De la part de Michael Smith
Envoyé : 27 novembre 2009 15:49
À : AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Objet : Tenurometer
Tenurometer is great! I evidently get assigned the publications of
all the ME Smiths in any discipline, inflating my h-index to far
higher than the most widely-cited scholars in my discipline. I wonder
if I can fool my Dean with this!
Seriously, the search function does allow me to find most of my own
publications, but the statistics function must take in all the ME
Smiths out there. Assigning tags a priori to searches (that is,
before the search has been run), rather than to actually entries, is
a strange procedure that may be to blame for my inflated data.
Mike Smith
Michael E. Smith, Professor
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University
www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9
http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com
http://calixtlahuaca.blogspot.com
Received on Sat Nov 28 2009 - 17:10:42 GMT