Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Pair-wise Pearson correlations between the AMT and popular scientometrics_ The results are shown in brackets as the correlation coefficient and the p-value_
| AMT | H-index | i10-index | Citations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMT | 1 | 0.44 (< 0.001) | 0.34 (< 0.001) | 0.58 (< 0.01) |
| H-index | 0.44 (< 0.001) | 1 | 0.81 (< 0.01) | 0.62 (< 0.001) |
| i10-index | 0.34 (< 0.001) | 0.81 (< 0.01) | 1 | 0.75 (< 0.001) |
| Citations | 0.58 (< 0.01) | 0.62 (< 0.001) | 0.75 (< 0.001) | 1 |
The relative difference (first row) and the statistical significance of the difference (second row) between the mean of the award-winning sample and the control group using the AMT and popular scientometrics (columns)_
| Time | Scientometric | AMT | H-index | i10-index | Citation count |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-prize year | Relative difference | 7.59% | 6.13% | 2.72% | 5.69% |
| Pre-prize year | p-value | 0.014 | 0.079 | 0.288 | 0.147 |
| 2023 | Relative difference | 13.33% | 11.07% | 4.72% | 6.83% |
| 2023 | p-value | 0.042 | 0.069 | 0.115 | 0.163 |