Ing a brand new paper p can only range involving and l.
Ing a brand new paper p can only variety in between and l.Lets take an instance to illustrate the qscores.Figure shows the citation profile of our archetypical unfair author.The x axis lists the qscores that this author receives for citing his personal papers.Notice that the author doesn’t get any qscore for selfciting papersDetecting hindex manipulation by way of Midecamycin web selfcitation analysisFig.Unfair citation profile of Fig.using the qscores on the x axisthat have much more citations than the hppaper.These papers are around the left in the diagonal hline.Citing these papers will not directly inflate the hindex and are as a result not considered when calculating qscores.Also notice that papers that have the same number of citations also get the identical qscores.Their order could be assumed to be random and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to give them distinct qscores.We plotted the qscores inside the order in which the papers were published (see Fig).In the event the author publishes a new paper that cites three of his personal papers, then the 3 qscores he received are summed.The paper index on the x axis thereby defines the order in which the papers were published.Initially, all three selfciting methods make the same qscores.This comes at no surprise because the fourth published paper can only cite its 3 predecessors.Only starting from the fifth paper, the author can pick out which paper to not cite.Some papers later, we come across considerable variations among the three selfcitation circumstances.The unfair author receives high qscores with really small spread, considering that he’s generally citing quite close to the hppaper.The author having a fair selfciting technique receives decrease and reduced qscores (see Fig).This could be explained by the fact that the total quantity of publications grows considerably fasterFig.Summed qscore indexes more than published paper p, for the unfair, fair and random condition Fig.Proportion of papers with fewer citations than the hpaperC.Bartneck, S.Kokkelmansthan PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21316380 the hindex.The proportion of papers which have fewer citations than the hppaper (for the appropriate from the hppaper) for the papers that have equal or much more citations than the hppaper (in the hppaper towards the left) is escalating (see Fig).The new papers that the fair author cites grow to be additional and further away in the hppaper and therefore attract reduced and decrease qscores.An author using a random selfcitation technique includes a a lot higher spread in his qscores, but they also appear to reduce.The increasing number of papers that have fewer citations than the hppaper can also clarify this trend.The papers within this long tail cause decrease and lower qscores (see Fig).We propose the qindex as the summed qscores the author received for every selfcitation s ranging from to the total variety of selfcitations l, in published paper j, to a paper in the citation profile indexed by ij,s.This is normalized by the number of published papers p Qp XX qj;i p j s j;sp lThe normalization by p assures that the qindex is approximately continuous more than all published papers if an author regularly cites in accordance with the unfair scheme.This linear behavior is often noticed in the unnormalized qindex in Fig.for the unfair condition, while inside the fair as well as the random situation it flattens out and are generally far below the unnormalized qindex of your unfair situation (see Fig).Interestingly, the curve for the fair and also the random situation are extremely close to each other.It may be tough to distinguish between authors that use these two techniques.The qindex’s variety follows as.
