EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 30 / No 6 (December 2025) Wuhan Univ. J. Nat. Sci., 30 6 (2025) 589-599 References
Open Access
Issue
Wuhan Univ. J. Nat. Sci.
Volume 30, Number 6, December 2025
Page(s) 589 - 599
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/wujns/2025306589
Published online 09 January 2026
  1. Xu Z H, Li X L, Shi J, et al. Research on key core technology identification based on multi-source heterogeneous data: Taking lithography technology as an example[J]. China Science and Technology Forum, 2024(12): 127-136, 164(Ch). [Google Scholar]
  2. Wei F Y, Yuan M J, Yang L, et al. Redefining research metrics: Introducing the inverse-H-index and efficacy equation in scholarly publication analysis[EB/OL]. [2025-03-16].https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dim.2025.100100. [Google Scholar]
  3. Xu Z H, Cai H Y, Zhang W, et al. The construction of the index system and model for assessing the national science and technology security risk[J]. Information Science, 2023, 41(12): 165-173, 182(Ch). [Google Scholar]
  4. Wang X. Evaluation of the discourse power in Chinese academic journals: A multi-fusion perspective[J]. Data and Information Management, 2023, 7(4): 100026. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lahiani R. Recreating relevance: Translated Arabic idioms through a relevance theory lens[J]. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2024, 11(1): 459. [Google Scholar]
  6. Keshavarz-Fathi M, Yazdanpanah N, Kolahchi S, et al. Universal research index: An inclusive metric to quantify scientific research output[J]. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2023, 49(3): 102714. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lyu W J, Huang Y H, Liu J. The multifaceted influence of multidisciplinary background on placement and academic progression of faculty[J]. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2024, 11(1): 350. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wang R Z, Lewis M, Zheng-Pywell R, et al. Using the H-index as a factor in the promotion of surgical faculty[J]. Heliyon, 2022, 8(4): e09319. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hirsch J E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2005, 102(46): 16569-16572. [Google Scholar]
  10. Anand B, Sudhakar T, Akshay D. A review on h-index and its alternative indices[J]. Journal of Information Science, 2023, 49(3): 624-665. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cova T F G G, Jarmelo S, Nunes S C C, et al. Seeing is believing: A graphical reference framework for multi-criteria evaluation[J]. Evaluation, 2017, 23(4): 479-494. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gingras Y, Khelfaoui M. Do we need a book citation index for research evaluation?[J]. Research Evaluation, 2019, 28(4): 383-393. [Google Scholar]
  13. Thelwall M, Sud P. Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(12): 3036-3050. [Google Scholar]
  14. Seglen P O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research[J]. BMJ, 1997, 314(7079): 498-502. [Google Scholar]
  15. Schubert A, Braun T. Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact[J]. Scientometrics, 1986, 9(5): 281-291. [Google Scholar]
  16. Katsaros D, Akritidis L, Bozanis P. The f index: Quantifying the impact of coterminal citations on scientists' ranking[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60(5): 1051-1056. [Google Scholar]
  17. Waltman L, van Eck N J, van Leeuwen T N, et al. Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 37-47. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fassin Y. The compound F2-index and the compound H-index as extension of the f2 and h-indexes from a dynamic perspective①[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2020, 5(3): 71-83. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ruocco G, Daraio C, Folli V, et al. Bibliometric indicators: The origin of their log-normal distribution and why they are not a reliable proxy for an individual scholar's talent[J]. Palgrave Communications, 2017, 3(1): 17064. [Google Scholar]
  20. Xu Z H. Coupling coordination development and driving Factors of new energy vehicles and ecological environment in China[J]. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences, 2025, 30(1): 79-90. [Google Scholar]
  21. Xu Z H. Machine learning-based quantitative structure-activity relationship and ADMET prediction models for ERα activity of anti-breast cancer drug candidates[J]. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences, 2023, 28(3): 257-270. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  22. Xu Z H, Lin Y, Cai H Y, et al. Risk assessment and categorization of terrorist attacks based on the Global Terrorism Database from 1970 to 2020[J]. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 2024, 11(1): 1103. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Manjareeka M. Evaluation of researchers: H-index or G-index which is better?[J]. Journal of Integrative Medicine and Research, 2023, 1(1): 34-36. [Google Scholar]
  24. Alonso S, Cabrerizo F J, Herrera-Viedma E, et al. hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g-indices[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(2): 391-400. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cheng Q J, Kwok C L, Cheung F T W, et al. Construction and validation of the Hong Kong altruism index (A-index)[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2017, 113: 201-208. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bannai H, Gagie T, Tomohiro I. Refining the r-index[J]. Theoretical Computer Science, 2020, 812: 96-108. [Google Scholar]
  27. Wang H Y, Chien T W, Kan W C, et al. Authors who contributed most to the fields of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis since 2011 using the hT-index: Bibliometric analysis[J]. Medicine, 2022, 101(38): e30375. [Google Scholar]
  28. Frittelli M, Mancini L, Peri I. Scientific research measures[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(12): 3051-3063. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tietze A, Hofmann P. The h-index and multi-author hm-index for individual researchers in condensed matter physics[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 119(1): 171-185. [Google Scholar]
  30. Khatib A, Ahmed R, Niaz S, et al. Sticky floor, broken ladder, and glass ceiling in internal medicine academic ranking, leadership, and research productivity[J]. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2025, 40(2): 354-360. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.