scispace - formally typeset

Journal ArticleDOI

New seniority-independent Hirsch-type index

01 Oct 2009-Journal of Informetrics (Elsevier)-Vol. 3, Iss: 4, pp 341-347

AbstractThe following seniority-independent Hirsch-type index has been defined. A scientist has index hpd if hpd of his/her papers have at least hpd citations per decade each, and his/her other papers have less than hpd + 1 citations per decade each. In contrast with the original h-index, which steadily increases in time, hpd of a mature scientist is nearly constant over many years, and hpd of an inactive scientist slowly declines. Therefore hpd is suitable to compare the scientific output of scientists in different ages. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The systems of assessment of the scientific output of scientists and of institutions are based on the assessment of individual publications. This obvious truth is seldom pronounced. The total number of citations is by far the most common measure of success of a scientific paper. Such an approach favors old papers over recent papers, because the number of citations of a paper cannot decrease, and usually it increases, although the quality of a scientific paper does not improve on aging. I argue that the average number of citations per year cpy defined as total number of citations divided by (1 + present year − publication year) is more suitable as a measure of success of a scientific paper than its total number of citations. It will be shown below that cpy remains nearly constant over time periods comparable with the length of scientific career of a scientist. This is in line with the intuitive feeling that the quality of a paper does not change in time. The properties of cpy will be studied in this present paper. The cpy of individual publications can be used to assess the scientific output of scientists, scientific institutions, etc. The assessment is analogous to the methods based on total number of citations of individual papers. A Hirsch-type cpy-based index will be studied in detail. 2. The assessment of individual publications

...read more

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper reviews 108 indicators that can potentially be used to measure performance on individual author-level, and examines the complexity of their calculations in relation to what they are supposed to reflect and ease of end-user application.
Abstract: An increasing demand for bibliometric assessment of individuals has led to a growth of new bibliometric indicators as well as new variants or combinations of established ones. The aim of this review is to contribute with objective facts about the usefulness of bibliometric indicators of the effects of publication activity at the individual level. This paper reviews 108 indicators that can potentially be used to measure performance on individual author-level, and examines the complexity of their calculations in relation to what they are supposed to reflect and ease of end-user application. As such we provide a schematic overview of author-level indicators, where the indicators are broadly categorised into indicators of publication count, indicators that qualify output (on the level of the researcher and journal), indicators of the effect of output (effect as citations, citations normalized to field or the researcher's body of work), indicators that rank the individual's work and indicators of impact over time. Supported by an extensive appendix we present how the indicators are computed, the complexity of the mathematical calculation and demands to data-collection, their advantages and limitations as well as references to surrounding discussion in the bibliometric community. The Appendix supporting this study is available online as supplementary material.

155 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Despite certain flaws and weaknesses, the h‐index provides a better way to assess long‐term performance of articles or authors than using a journal's impact factor, and it provides an alternative way to assessment a journal’s long-term ranking.
Abstract: There is considerable debate on the use and abuse of journal impact factors and on selecting the most appropriate indicator to assess research outcome for an individual or group of scientists. Internet searches using Web of Science and Scopus were conducted to retrieve citation data for an individual in order to calculate nine variants of Hirsch's h-index. Citations to articles published in a wide range of psychiatric journals in the periods 1995-99 and 2000-05 were analyzed using Web of Science. Comparisons were made between journal impact factor, h-index of citations from publication to 2008, and the proportion of articles cited at least 30 or 50 times. For up to 14 years post-publication, there was a strong positive relationship between journal impact factor and h-index for citations received. Journal impact factor was also compared to the percentage of articles cited at least 30 or 50 times-a comparison that showed wide variations between journals with similar impact factors. This study found that 40%-50% of the articles published in the top ten psychiatry journals ranked by impact factor acquire 30 to 50 citations within ten to fifteen years. Despite certain flaws and weaknesses, the h-index provides a better way to assess long-term performance of articles or authors than using a journal's impact factor, and it provides an alternative way to assess a journal's long-term ranking.

73 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A relative bidimensional index is proposed that takes into account both the net production and the quality of it, as an attempt to provide a comprehensive and objective way to compare the research output of different institutions in a specific field, using journal contributions and citations.
Abstract: The problem of comparing academic institutions in terms of their research production is nowadays a priority issue. This paper proposes a relative bidimensional index that takes into account both the net production and the quality of it, as an attempt to provide a comprehensive and objective way to compare the research output of different institutions in a specific field, using journal contributions and citations. The proposed index is then applied, as a case study, to rank the top Spanish universities in the fields of Chemistry and Computer Science in the period ranging from 2000 until 2009. A comparison with the top 50 universities in the ARWU rankings is also made, showing the proposed ranking is better suited to distinguish among non-elite universities.

44 citations


Cites background from "New seniority-independent Hirsch-ty..."

  • ...Other individual researcher indices have also been proposed extending the h-index, such as the g-index (Egghe 2006), q2-index (Cabrerizo et al. 2010), and others (Bornmann et al. 2010; Kosmulski 2009)....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The success-index is introduced, aimed at reducing the NSP-index’s limitations, although requiring more computing effort, and a detailed analysis of it from the point of view of its operational properties and a comparison with the h-index's ones is presented.
Abstract: Among the most recent bibliometric indicators for normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of citation behaviour, Kosmulski (J Informetr 5(3):481–485, 2011) proposed the NSP (number of successful paper) index. According to the authors, NSP deserves much attention for its great simplicity and immediate meaning—equivalent to those of the h-index—while it has the disadvantage of being prone to manipulation and not very efficient in terms of statistical significance. In the first part of the paper, we introduce the success-index, aimed at reducing the NSP-index’s limitations, although requiring more computing effort. Next, we present a detailed analysis of the success-index from the point of view of its operational properties and a comparison with the h-index’s ones. Particularly interesting is the examination of the success-index scale of measurement, which is much richer than the h-index’s. This makes success-index much more versatile for different types of analysis—e.g., (cross-field) comparisons of the scientific output of (1) individual researchers, (2) researchers with different seniority, (3) research institutions of different size, (4) scientific journals, etc.

39 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The assessment based on the number of SP produces comparable scores for scientists working in different disciplines of science, and in different countries.
Abstract: A paper which has received more citations than the number of references in that paper is called a successful paper (SP). The assessment based on the number of SP produces comparable scores for scientists working in different disciplines of science, and in different countries.

38 citations


References
More filters

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number ≥h, is proposed as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher.
Abstract: I propose the index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number ≥h, as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher.

7,899 citations


"New seniority-independent Hirsch-ty..." refers background in this paper

  • ...The problem of h-index favoring old over young scientists has been recognized in the original paper by Hirsch (2005), who introduced the m quotient defined as h divided by the number of years passed since the first paper was published....

    [...]

  • ...By analogy with the indices based on total numbers of citations (Hirsch, 2005), the following parameters for assessment of individuals can be proposed....

    [...]


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The R- and AR-indices are introduced and it is proposed the pair (h, AR) as a meaningful indicator for research evaluation and a relation characterizing the h-index in the power law model is proved.
Abstract: Based on the foundation laid by the h -index we introduce and study the R - and AR -indices. These new indices eliminate some of the disadvantages of the h -index, especially when they are used in combination with the h -index. The R -index measures the h -core’s citation intensity, while AR goes one step further and takes the age of publications into account. This allows for an index that can actually increase and decrease over time. We propose the pair ( h , AR ) as a meaningful indicator for research evaluation. We further prove a relation characterizing the h -index in the power law model

542 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The first extensive measurement of the occurrence of Sleeping Beauties in the science literature is reported, derived from the measurements an ‘awakening’ probability function and identified the ‘most extreme Sleeping Beauty so far’.
Abstract: A 'Sleeping Beauty in Science' is a publication that goes unnoticed ('sleeps') for a long time and then, almost suddenly, attracts a lot of attention ('is awakened by a prince'). We here report the -to our knowledge- first extensive measurement of the occurrence of Sleeping Beauties in the science literature. We derived from the measurements an 'awakening' probability function and identified the 'most extreme Sleeping Beauty so far'.

417 citations


"New seniority-independent Hirsch-ty..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Finally, very few papers (“sleeping beauties”; van Raan, 2004) were seldom cited in the first decade after publication, and more often cited in the second decade....

    [...]


Jin, BiHui, Liang, LiMing, Ronald, Rousseau, Leo, Egghe 
01 Jan 2007
Abstract: 把 R-andAR 索引基于我们介绍并且学习的 h 索引打的基础。这些新索引消除一些 h 索引的劣势,特别当他们与 h 索引在联合被使用时。R 索引测量 h-core 的引证紧张,当 AR 去时进一步的一个步骤并且花出版物的很长时间进报道。这允许能实际上随着时间的过去增加并且减少的一个索引。我们建议对(h, AR ) 作为为研究评估的有意义的指示物。我们进一步证明尽最大努力描绘 h 索引的一种关系是法律模型。

401 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The effectiveness and the benefits of the new indices are exhibited to unfold the full potential of the h-index, with extensive experimental results obtained from the DBLP, a widely known on-line digital library.
Abstract: What is the value of a scientist and its impact upon the scientific thinking? How can we measure the prestige of a journal or a conference? The evaluation of the scientific work of a scientist and the estimation of the quality of a journal or conference has long attracted significant interest, due to the benefits by obtaining an unbiased and fair criterion. Although it appears to be simple, defining a quality metric is not an easy task. To overcome the disadvantages of the present metrics used for ranking scientists and journals, J. E. Hirsch proposed a pioneering metric, the now famous h-index. In this article we demonstrate several inefficiencies of this index and develop a pair of generalizations and effective variants of it to deal with scientist ranking and publication forum ranking. The new citation indices are able to disclose trendsetters in scientific research, as well as researchers that constantly shape their field with their influential work, no matter how old they are. We exhibit the effectiveness and the benefits of the new indices to unfold the full potential of the h-index, with extensive experimental results obtained from the DBLP, a widely known on-line digital library.

378 citations