↓ Skip to main content

The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0005429
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun-Ting Zhang

Abstract

The h-index has already been used by major citation databases to evaluate the academic performance of individual scientists. Although effective and simple, the h-index suffers from some drawbacks that limit its use in accurately and fairly comparing the scientific output of different researchers. These drawbacks include information loss and low resolution: the former refers to the fact that in addition to h(2) citations for papers in the h-core, excess citations are completely ignored, whereas the latter means that it is common for a group of researchers to have an identical h-index.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Italy 3 2%
Spain 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
Denmark 2 1%
India 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 155 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Master 18 10%
Professor 15 8%
Other 61 34%
Unknown 18 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 36 20%
Social Sciences 27 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Other 47 26%
Unknown 22 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,201,589
of 26,329,759 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#26,432
of 232,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,196
of 103,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#79
of 512 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,329,759 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 232,301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 103,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 512 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.