Support Options

Submit a Support Ticket


Wish List - Wish #209


Member avatar

2 Dislike

Gerhard Klimeck

user ranking according to how many nanoHUB citations they generated

we are beginning to summarize for each contributor their work and their impact. We are also providing analysis to each user on what they consumed in terms of runs and CPU time. We should provide them also with the number of citations they generated for nanoHUB.

For further evaluation I would like to be able to rank users not only by the number of runs and CPU hours they consumed, but also how many citations they generated. The number of secondary citations they generated on top of that would also be a greeat thing to follow.

Comments (0)

  1. Gerhard Klimeck

    I believe that this is a critical element in the research assessment in the nanoHUB and the work Krishan and I do regarding impact statements of simulation on nanoHUB users. We will want to correlate citations/papers with simulation runs. Identify individuals to study and see if their behaviors are related.

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to comment.

  2. Michael McLennan

    Some ideas… Have a back-end system for tying authors to their nanoHUB login, then giving credit (500 points) for each author that is connected. This may be a one-time thing. Authors get an email about their points, encouraging them to spend their points in the nanoHUB store.

    Any time a person has a certain number of points (or has a balance remaining for so long) they should probably get a reminder about spending their points.

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to comment.

  3. Michael McLennan

    A good starting point is to add functionality to the “Contributors” page. Report the number of users (rolled up from usage stats) generated by each contributor, and the number of citations in the literature. Then, add sorting options to the list for these values.

    If we add a “top 10” module or something like that, we should let people opt in to being included on that list.

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to comment.

  4. Joseph M. Cychosz

    This feature should be integrated with the reputation system.

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to comment.

  5. George B. Adams III

    We can encourage this behavior by changing the labeling on nanoHUB from “resource”, “contribution”, “contributor” to “publication” and “author”. In the latter context, citation information comes to mind naturally and featuring in on nanoHUB makes more sense.

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to comment.

  6. Greg Lush

    Just looking around a bit, I have a feeling that most of the citations will be self-citations (contributor has a pub in which s/he used own submitted tool), which are fine, but part of the assessment should be whether OTHERS are using the tool. Impact factor calculations by journals I think ignore self-citations, for example. I would urge us to be sure to note when independent authors use/cite the resources.

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to comment., a resource for nanoscience and nanotechnology, is supported by the National Science Foundation and other funding agencies. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.