The meaning of the h-index

The h-index originates from the assumption that the number of citations received by a scientist is a better indicator of the relevance of his or her work than the number of papers he or she publishes or the journals where they are published. It takes into account the number of papers published and the citations to those papers in a balanced way, and thus is useful to make comparisons between scientists. The present paper addresses the most frequent questions about the h-index. Specifically, it explains its origin, its advantages compared to other indices, the factors that can influence it (e.g. age, field of knowledge, topic of research and language of publication), its variants, and the injustices it may lead to. In short, this paper provides a clear exposition of the hoped-for role of the h-index in the evaluation of scientists: that it serves as a useful complement to other indicators that are more subjective, and that it contributes to the progress of science by aiding decision-making on allocation of research resources in a more effective way, and on rewarding researchers who contribute to scientific progress in a more fair way.     

Enhanced Definitions of Intimate Partner Violence for DSM‐5 and ICD‐11 May Promote Improved Screening and Treatment

Nuanced, multifaceted, and content valid diagnostic criteria for intimate partner violence (IPV) have been created and can be used reliably in the field even by those with little‐to‐no clinical training/background. The use of such criteria such as these would likely lead to more reliable decision making in the field and more consistency across studies. Further, interrater agreement was higher than that usually reported for individual mental disorders. This paper will provide an overview of (a) IPV's scope and impact; (b) the reliable and valid diagnostic criteria that have been used and the adaptation of these criteria inserted in the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and another adaptation proposed for the forthcoming International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD); (c) suggestions for screening of IPV in primary care settings; (d) interventions for IPV; and (e) suggested steps toward globally accepted programs.     

Couple and Family Treatments: Study Quality and Level of Evidence

This paper examines the application of the guidelines for evidence‐based treatments in family therapy developed by Sexton and collaborators to a set of treatment models. These guidelines classify the models using criteria that take into account the distinctive features of couple and family treatments. A two‐step approach was taken: (1) The quality of each of the studies supporting the treatment models was assessed according to a list of ad hoc core criteria; (2) the level of evidence of each treatment model was determined using the guidelines. To reflect the stages of empirical validation present in the literature, nine models were selected: three models each with high, moderate, and low levels of empirical validation, determined by the number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The quality ratings highlighted the strengths and limitations of each of the studies that provided evidence backing the treatment models. The classification by level of evidence indicated that four of the models were level III, “evidence‐based” treatments; one was a level II, “evidence‐informed treatment with promising preliminary evidence‐based results”; and four were level I, “evidence‐informed” treatments. Using the guidelines helped identify treatments that are solid in terms of not only the number of RCTs but also the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of a given treatment. From a research perspective, this analysis highlighted areas to be addressed before some models can move up to a higher level of evidence. From a clinical perspective, the guidelines can help identify the models whose studies have produced clinically relevant results.     

From criticism to approval: A reconsideration of Ji’s Yogācāra position on Madhyamaka

Madhyamaka and Yogācāra are two Mahāyāna schools which have distinct systems. In the seventh century East Asia, the doctrinal distinction between the two schools was received as doctrinal contrast in the polemic circumstance of Emptiness-Existence (C. kongyou 空有) controversy. In this context, Ji 基 (632–682), the putative founder of East Asian Yogācāra school, has been normally considered by scholars to have advocated ‘Existence’ (viz., Yogācāra) in opposition to ‘Emptiness’ (viz., Madhyamaka). It is problematic, however, to brand Ji’s Yogācāra position simply as anti-Madhyamaka. Although Ji evidently expresses evident criticism on such a Madhyamaka exegete as Bhāvaviveka (ca. 500–570) in some of his works, he also describes Bhāvaviveka in an amicable or even respective way in other works. By analyzing Ji’s extant works, this article argues that Ji’s scholastic attitude toward Madhyamaka changed from criticism to approval.