The document provides information on calculating the H-index and responding effectively to reviewer comments. It discusses that the H-index measures both the productivity and citation impact of a scientist's publications. The H-index is based on the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations they received. The document also provides common phrases to use in responding to reviewer comments and thanks the reviewers for their feedback to strengthen the manuscript. Useful research tools and links are also listed.

1. How to Calculate the H-index
and
Effective Response of Reviewer
Presented By:
Dr. Neeraj Kumar Misra
Associate Professor
Department of SENSE,
VIT-AP University
Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=_V5Af5kAAAAJ&hl=en
Research Gate profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Neeraj_Kumar_Misra
ORCHID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7907-0276

2. How to Calculate Cite Score for Journal
CiteScore 2017 counts the citations received in 2017 to documents published in 2014,
2015 and 2016, and divides this by the number of documents published in 2014, 2015 and
2016.

4. H- Index (Hirsch Index)
• The h-index is an author-level metric that attempts to measure both the
productivity and citation impact of the publications of a scientist or scholar.
• The index is based on the set of the scientist's most cited paper and the
number of citations that they have received in other publications.
• The index was suggested in 2005 by Jorge E. Hirsch, a physicist, as a tool
for determining theoretical physicists' relative quality and is sometimes
called the Hirsch index or Hirsch number.

5. H-index
➢H- index showing your activeness in your research and also
the importance of your research to the research community. It
is an indicator that you are doing very well in your research
field

6. Research Accounts
• Google Scholar
• Research Gate
• Orchid
• Scopus
• Researcher ID
• Publons
• Mendeley
• Linked in

7. Useful Research Links
Research Articles Download
• https://sci-hub.se/
• http://sci-hub.tw/
• http://sci-hub.cc/
• http://sci-hub.is/
• http://sci-hub.la/
• http://sci-hub.hk/
• http://sci-hub.name/
• http://sci-hub.ty/
• http://libgen.io/scimag/index.php
• http://twin.sci-hub.la/
• http://tree.sci-hub.la/
• http://tree.sci-hub.tv/
• http://tree.sci-hub.hk/
• http://www.researchgate.net/

8. • Journals
• https://mjl.clarivate.com/
• https://www.scimagojr.com/
• http://www.ourglocal.com/journal/
• http://journalseek.net/
• Conferences
• http://conferencealerts.com
• http://allconferencealert.com
• http://www.ourglocal.com
• http://www.wikicfp.com/cfp
• Books
• http://gen.lib.rus.ec
• http://libgen.pw
• http://libgen.unblocker.cc/
• http://libgen.unblockall.org/
• https://libgen.unblocker.win/
• https://libgen.unblocked.gdn/

9. • Plagiarism Detection
• https://turnitin.com/
• https://ithenticate.com/
• Article Editing
• https://mendeley.com
• https://typeset.io/
• https://endnote.com/
• English Corrections
• https://grammarly.com/
• https://prowritingaid.com/
• https://cdn.gingersoftware.com/
• https://afterthedeadline.com/

10. https://scholar.google.co.in/citations?user=_V5Af5kAAAAJ&hl=en

11. Cross reference: https://search.crossref.org/

12. How to Effectively Reply to Reviewer
comments

13. Response to reviewers
The following manuscript is a revised version of our initial paper to which we received a first round of very helpful reviews
for which we are very thankful.
Following the summary of the Associate Editor, we used these reviews to strengthen our work. In fact, we found that the
reviewers’ feedback was in general rather positive towards our work, while undoubtedly there have been several
imprecisions and misunderstandings in the manuscript about which we intensely reflected. This led to changes in our
descriptions and, by this, a much improved presentation. Overall, we believe that we were able to address all of the
concerns stated by the reviewers.
We explicitly comment and explain the made changes with respect to the initial version in the detailed comments to the
reviewers which are enclosed below. Besides that, we also attached a diff"-version of our manuscript where all changes are
highlighted in blue and red font (for additions and deletions, respectively).
We hope that we meet the stated concerns with these clarifications and revisions. We strongly believe that the research
results reported in this paper are a worthwhile contribution to the scientific community.
Kindly asking for your favorable consideration, we remain with
Best Regards
Dr. Neeraj Misra

14. Common word use to reply the reviewer comments
➢ Many thanks for this comment.
➢ Many thanks for this positive evaluation of our manuscript!
➢ Many thanks for this observation.
➢ Many thanks again for this nice summary. We are happy to see our results recognized in such a way
➢ We accordingly revised this part.
➢ Thank you for pointing out this doubt a reader might have.
➢ Thank you for hinting this interesting paper. We added this paper to the background section.
➢ We apologize for the confusion. We revised the sentence which hopefully clarified this point.
➢ We completely agree that an experimental evaluation of the results is desirable.
➢ We apologize for rather bad placement and, of course, corrected this issue in the revised manuscript.
➢ We agree with the reviewer that this is a pertinent issue.

15. Attachment 1 in the Revised Manuscript

16. THANK YOU!
16