On a short time scale, the last communications are sometimes the most relevant leading to an anti-chronological organisation...
... even thought a better and broader picture including expertise, risks and evolutions across scientific fields can only be seen when looking at all communications regardless of their chronology...
- Publications (Peer-Reviewed)
- Publications (Contributions & not Peer-Reviewed Proceedings)
For those of us who like automated statistics see scholar.google or ResearchGate .
Obviously the choice, the interpretation and the normalisation of these raw data could be discussed for a long time, for instance, in terms of overlapping elements such as
- a simple menyear & financial input to outcome ratio for each project
- efforts & ressources dedicated to advertising the novelty or potential applications of a research work including the visibility of an institution, the (pre-)insertion into a network, access to conferences, research direction switches, etc.
- both project and PI specific startup funds & initial associated workforce
- institutional, local or broader supports & resources including financial, equipement (access free/constrained/fees or purchase) considerations
- opportunities to develop and manage a sustained workforce including access to students, technicians, permanent/temporary qualified staff members
- administrative & teaching duties
- etc
