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- Publications (Contributions & not Peer-Reviewed Proceedings)
Other sources could be
... even though the metrics, which could be extracted from these last three, are to be taken with a pinch of salt... as it has been explained numerous time already in various publications and related discussions.
If you are not aware of the caveats yet, you can have a look for intance to the following exemples (1
& 2
) among plenty of others including mobility, funding, ressources, etc...
As often, "the more publications one contributes to" is unlikely the same as "the more one contributes to publications", and while the above metrics migth provide a few (different) numbers of publications, none of them are related to contributions in terms of both amount and quality.