Best Researcher Award
Academic recognition profile: Feifei Wang
| Feifei Wang | |
|---|---|
| Researcher profile | |
| Affiliation | Jiaxing University |
| Country | China |
| Scopus ID | 59674474000 |
| Documents | 30 |
| Citations | 929 |
| h-index | 13 |
| Subject Area | Health Professions |
| Event | World Science Awards |
Feifei Wang is a researcher affiliated with Jiaxing University, China, whose supplied bibliometric profile identifies Health Professions as the subject area. The Scopus author information provided for this profile records 30 documents, 929 citations, and an h-index of 13. These indicators offer a quantitative overview of the researcher’s indexed publication and citation record, although they do not independently establish the quality, originality, or practical significance of individual contributions. [1]
This article presents an academic recognition profile associated with the Best Researcher Award at World Science Awards. It summarizes the supplied researcher information, describes the significance and limitations of bibliometric indicators, and outlines considerations relevant to evaluating research contributions. The available information does not include a verified publication list, individual article titles, research abstracts, ORCID identifier, or documented award adjudication results; accordingly, those details are not inferred.
Abstract
This academic profile documents the supplied research metrics and institutional affiliation of Feifei Wang of Jiaxing University, China. The profile identifies Health Professions as the subject area and reports 30 indexed documents, 929 citations, and an h-index of 13. The article contextualizes these measures within scholarly research assessment and considers their relevance to the Best Researcher Award associated with World Science Awards. Because a complete publication bibliography, article-level evidence, independent verification records, and formal award evaluation documents were not supplied, the profile does not attribute specific discoveries, clinical outcomes, or award-selection decisions to the researcher. Bibliometric measures should be interpreted alongside qualitative assessment of research methods, originality, reproducibility, and relevance. [1] [2]
Keywords
Feifei Wang; Jiaxing University; China; Health Professions; bibliometrics; research impact; citation analysis; h-index; scholarly publications; Best Researcher Award; World Science Awards.
Introduction
Academic recognition profiles document a researcher’s institutional association, disciplinary context, scholarly output, and available indicators of research visibility. In health-related fields, research assessment may encompass clinical relevance, methodological rigor, evidence synthesis, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the potential contribution of findings to professional practice. These dimensions require examination of the underlying research rather than reliance on publication counts alone. [2] [3]
The supplied record associates Feifei Wang with Jiaxing University in China and identifies Health Professions as the relevant subject area. The reported Scopus metrics provide a starting point for understanding the indexed research record. This article distinguishes those supplied figures from interpretations that would require additional documentary evidence, such as a verified list of publications, full-text research outputs, institutional confirmation, or official award results.
The award context is World Science Awards. The presence of an award name in this profile describes the stated recognition context and should not be interpreted as independent confirmation of an award decision unless an official announcement or award record establishes that outcome. [4]
Research Profile
The supplied bibliographic information identifies Feifei Wang as affiliated with Jiaxing University. Health Professions is the recorded subject area for this profile. No further specialty, departmental appointment, academic rank, or professional qualification was provided, so these details are not stated as established facts.
The Scopus author record is the designated external source for the supplied bibliometric information. Database profiles may change as records are indexed, corrected, merged, or updated; consequently, these values should be understood as supplied profile figures rather than permanently fixed measurements. [1]
Research Contributions
A reliable account of research contributions requires evidence from individual publications, including their stated objectives, study designs, findings, limitations, and relevance to the field. The available profile data establishes a reported publication and citation record but does not identify specific studies or establish a particular scientific discovery attributable to Feifei Wang.
For research associated with Health Professions, a substantive assessment could consider the relevance of research questions to health services or professional practice, the appropriateness of analytical methods, ethical research conduct, transparent reporting, and the extent to which findings can inform further investigation. These are general assessment dimensions, not claims that particular contributions have been verified in this case. [2] [3]
A publication-level review would be necessary to describe research themes, collaborations, methodological advances, or implications for health-related policy and practice. Until the relevant articles and supporting evidence are examined, the scope and significance of individual contributions remain undetermined.
Publications
The supplied Scopus profile reports 30 documents associated with the author identifier 59674474000. [1] The individual titles, journal names, publication dates, co-authors, document types, and DOI identifiers were not included in the supplied data. A verified publication list is therefore not reproduced here, and no article-level bibliographic details have been inferred.
For a complete publication section, records should be retrieved from the linked Scopus author profile and checked against the original publisher pages. Each selected publication should include its authors, title, journal or proceedings title, year, volume and page information where applicable, and DOI or stable publisher URL. Author identity and any duplicate or incorrectly attributed records should also be checked before publication.
The absence of a publication-by-publication list in this article is a limitation of the supplied source material, not evidence that further research outputs do not exist.
Research Impact
The reported 929 citations indicate that the indexed documents in the supplied profile have received citations within the relevant database’s coverage. Citation counts can provide information about scholarly attention, but they vary by discipline, publication age, document type, database coverage, and citation practices. They should not be treated as direct measurements of research quality or societal benefit. [2] [3]
The reported h-index of 13 represents a publication-and-citation indicator: under the conventional definition, at least 13 publications have each received at least 13 citations, subject to the database and record set used for calculation. [5] This indicator does not capture every dimension of research performance and may be affected by field-specific citation patterns and career duration.
The supplied figures do not independently establish clinical effectiveness, changes in professional practice, public-health outcomes, policy adoption, or other societal effects. Assessing those forms of impact would require additional evidence, such as documented implementation, independent evaluations, policy references, or validated research-to-practice outcomes. A balanced assessment should combine quantitative indicators with qualitative review of the underlying work. [2] [3]
Award Suitability
The Best Researcher Award is the recognition category specified for this profile, within the context of World Science Awards. The available bibliometric figures provide quantitative information that may be considered as part of a broader research assessment. They do not, by themselves, establish eligibility, comparative ranking, selection by a judging panel, or confirmation that an award has formally been conferred.
A rigorous assessment of suitability would ordinarily examine the relevance and originality of research outputs, methodological quality, scholarly contribution, responsible research practices, collaboration, and evidence of influence within the relevant field. The assessment should also consider the award’s published eligibility rules and evaluation criteria, together with verified evidence supporting each criterion. [2] [3]
The information available for this profile is insufficient to independently determine a final award assessment. A substantiated conclusion would require the official award record, applicable criteria, and supporting research documentation. The World Science Awards website is provided as the relevant event reference. [4]
Conclusion
The supplied information identifies Feifei Wang as a researcher affiliated with Jiaxing University, China, in the subject area of Health Professions. The associated Scopus profile is reported to contain 30 documents, 929 citations, and an h-index of 13. These figures provide a concise quantitative snapshot of the indexed record but require contextual interpretation and independent verification for formal research evaluation.
Within the Best Researcher Award context of World Science Awards, a comprehensive profile would benefit from a verified publication bibliography, article-level assessment, evidence of research quality and influence, and confirmation of the official award outcome. This article therefore records the supplied profile information while distinguishing reported metrics from conclusions that require further evidence.
External Links
References
- Elsevier. (n.d.). Scopus author details: Author ID 59674474000. Scopus. The profile metrics in this article are based on the figures supplied for this author record; the live profile should be consulted for current database information.
https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=59674474000 - Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a.
https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a - San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. (2012; subsequent online updates). DORA: Declaration and recommendations on research assessment. The declaration advocates evaluating research on its merits and avoiding the use of journal-based metrics as substitutes for assessing individual research outputs.
https://sfdora.org/read/ - World Science Awards. (n.d.). Official award website. Consult the official website for current award categories, eligibility conditions, evaluation procedures, and any published recognition announcements. The website reference alone does not verify an individual award result.
https://worldscienceawards.com/ - Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102