首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
The definition of the g-index is as arbitrary as that of the h-index, because the threshold number g2 of citations to the g most cited papers can be modified by a prefactor at one's discretion, thus taking into account more or less of the highly cited publications within a dataset. In a case study I investigate the citation records of 26 physicists and show that the prefactor influences the ranking in terms of the generalized g-index less than for the generalized h-index. I propose specifically a prefactor of 2 for the g-index, because then the resulting values are of the same order of magnitude as for the common h-index. In this way one can avoid the disadvantage of the original g-index, namely that the values are usually substantially larger than for the h-index and thus the precision problem is substantially larger; while the advantages of the g-index over the h-index are kept. Like for the generalized h-index, also for the generalized g-index different prefactors might be more useful for investigations which concentrate only on top scientists with high citation frequencies or on junior researchers with small numbers of citations.  相似文献   

2.
The definitions of the rational and real-valued variants of the h-index and g-index are reviewed. It is shown how they can be obtained both graphically and by calculation. Formulae are derived expressing the exact relations between the h-variants and between the g-variants. Subsequently these relations are examined. In a citation context the real h-index is often, but not always, smaller than the rational h-index. It is also shown that the relation between the real and the rational g-index depends on the number of citations of the article ranked g + 1. Maximum differences between h, hr and hrat on the one hand and between g, gr and grat on the other are determined.  相似文献   

3.
This paper studies the correlations between peer review and citation indicators when evaluating research quality in library and information science (LIS). Forty-two LIS experts provided judgments on a 5-point scale of the quality of research published by 101 scholars; the median rankings resulting from these judgments were then correlated with h-, g- and H-index values computed using three different sources of citation data: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar (GS). The two variants of the basic h-index correlated more strongly with peer judgment than did the h-index itself; citation data from Scopus was more strongly correlated with the expert judgments than was data from GS, which in turn was more strongly correlated than data from WoS; correlations from a carefully cleaned version of GS data were little different from those obtained using swiftly gathered GS data; the indices from the citation databases resulted in broadly similar rankings of the LIS academics; GS disadvantaged researchers in bibliometrics compared to the other two citation database while WoS disadvantaged researchers in the more technical aspects of information retrieval; and experts from the UK and other European countries rated UK academics with higher scores than did experts from the USA.  相似文献   

4.
Research was undertaken that examined what, if any, correlation there was between the h-index and rankings by peer assessment, and what correlation there was between the 2008 UK RAE rankings and the collective h-index of submitting departments. About 100 international scholars in Library and Information Science were ranked by their peers on the quality of their work. These rankings were correlated with the h and g scores the scholars had achieved. The results showed that there was a correlation between their median rankings and the indexes. The 2008 RAE grade point averages (GPA) achieved by departments from three UoAs – Anthropology, Library and Information Management and Pharmacy were compared with each of their collective h and g index scores. Results were mixed, with a strong correlation between pharmacy departments and index scores, followed by library and information management to anthropology where negative and non-significant results were found. Taken together, the findings from the research indicate that individual ranking by peer assessment and their h-index or variants was generally good. Results for the RAE 2008 gave correlations between GPA and successive versions of the h-index which varied in strength, except for anthropology where, it is suggested detailed cited reference searches must be undertaken to maximise citation counts.  相似文献   

5.
The aim of the study is to explore the effects of the increase in the number of publications or citations on several impact indicators by a single journal paper or citation. The possible change of the h-index, A-index, R-index, π-index, π-rate, Journal Paper Citedness (JPC), and Citation Distribution Score (CDS) is followed by models. Particular attention is given to the increase of the indices by a single plus citation. The results obtained by the “successively built-up indicator” model show that with increasing number of citations or self-citations the indices may increase substantially.  相似文献   

6.
Citation based approaches, such as the impact factor and h-index, have been used to measure the influence or impact of journals for journal rankings. A survey of the related literature for different disciplines shows that the level of correlation between these citation based approaches is domain dependent. We analyze the correlation between the impact factors and h-indices of the top ranked computer science journals for five different subjects. Our results show that the correlation between these citation based approaches is very low. Since using a different approach can result in different journal rankings, we further combine the different results and then re-rank the journals using a combination method. These new ranking results can be used as a reference for researchers to choose their publication outlets.  相似文献   

7.
The Hirsch index and the Egghe index are both numbers that synthesize a researcher's output. The h-index associated with researcher r is the maximum number h such that r has h papers with at least h citations each. The g-index is the maximum number g of papers by r such that the average number of citations of the g papers is at least g. Both indices are characterized in terms of four axioms. One identifies outputs deserving index at most one. A second one establishes a strong monotonicity condition. A third one requires the index to satisfy a property of subadditivity. The last one consists of a monotonicity condition, for the h-index, and an aggregate monotonicity condition, for the g-index.  相似文献   

8.
A recently suggested modification of the g-index is analysed in order to take multiple coauthorship appropriately into account. By fractionalised counting of the papers one can obtain an appropriate measure which I call gm-index. Two fictitious examples for model cases and two empirical cases are analysed. The results are compared with two other variants of the g-index which have also recently been proposed. Only the gm-index shows the correct behaviour when datasets are aggregated. The interpolated and continuous versions of the g-index and its variants are also discussed. For an intuitive comparison of the determination of the investigated variants of the h-index and the g-index, a visualization of the citation records is utilized.  相似文献   

9.
From the way that it was initially defined (Hirsch, 2005), the h-index naturally encourages focus on the most highly cited publications of an author and this in turn has led to (predominantly) a rank-based approach to its investigation. However, Hirsch (2005) and Burrell (2007a) both adopted a frequency-based approach leading to general conjectures regarding the relationship between the h-index and the author's publication and citation rates as well as his/her career length. Here we apply the distributional results of Burrell, 2007a, Burrell, 2013b to three published data sets to show that a good estimate of the h-index can often be obtained knowing only the number of publications and the number of citations. (Exceptions can occur when an author has one or more “outliers” in the upper tail of the citation distribution.) In other words, maybe the main body of the distribution determines the h-index, not the wild wagging of the tail. Furthermore, the simple geometric distribution turns out to be the key.  相似文献   

10.
Hirsch's h-index seeks to give a single number that in some sense summarizes an author's research output and its impact. Essentially, the h-index seeks to identify the most productive core of an author's output in terms of most received citations. This most productive set we refer to as the Hirsch core, or h-core. Jin's A-index relates to the average impact, as measured by the average number of citations, of this “most productive” core. In this paper, we investigate both the total productivity of the Hirsch core – what we term the size of the h-core – and the A-index using a previously proposed stochastic model for the publication/citation process, emphasising the importance of the dynamic, or time-dependent, nature of these measures. We also look at the inter-relationships between these measures. Numerical investigations suggest that the A-index is a linear function of time and of the h-index, while the size of the Hirsch core has an approximate square-law relationship with time, and hence also with the A-index and the h-index.  相似文献   

11.
The h index is a widely used indicator to quantify an individual's scientific research output. But it has been criticized for its insufficient accuracy—the ability to discriminate reliably between meaningful amounts of research output. As a single measure it cannot capture the complete information on the citation distribution over a scientist's publication list. An extensive data set with bibliometric data on scientists working in the field of molecular biology is taken as an example to introduce two approaches providing additional information to the h index: (1) h2 lower, h2 center, and h2 upper are proposed, which allow quantification of three areas within a scientist's citation distribution: the low impact area (h2 lower), the area captured by the h index (h2 center), and the area of publications with the highest visibility (h2 upper). (2) Given the existence of different areas in the citation distribution, the segmented regression model (sRM) is proposed as a method to statistically estimate the number of papers in a scientist's publication list with the highest visibility. However, such sRM values should be compared across individuals with great care.  相似文献   

12.
In the present work we introduce a modification of the h-index for multi-authored papers with contribution based author name ranking. The modified h-index is denoted by hmc-index. It employs the framework of the hm-index, which in turn is a straightforward modification of the Hirsch index, proposed by Schreiber. To retain the merit of requiring no additional rearrangement of papers in the hm-index and in order to overcome its shortage of benefiting secondary authors at the expense of primary authors, hmc-index uses combined credit allocation (CCA) to replace fractionalized counting in the hm-index. The hm-index is a special form of hmc-index and fits for papers with equally important authors or alphabetically ordered authorship. There is a possibility of an author of lower contribution to the whole scientific community obtaining a higher hmc-index. Rational hmc-index, denoted by hmcr-index, can avoid it. A fictitious example as a model case and two empirical cases are analyzed. The correlations of the hmcr-index with the h-index and its several variants considering multiple co-authorship are inspected with 30 researchers’ citation data. The results show that the hmcr-index is more reasonable for authors with different contributions. A researcher playing more important roles in significant work will obtain higher hmcr-index.  相似文献   

13.
We show that the h-index, g-index, ψ-index, and p-index, are related through the inequalities: h ≤ p ≤ g ≤ ψ. Moreover, this relation is proved theoretically in the mathematical framework of Lotkaian informetrics and is verified empirically by using two datasets from the Web of Science in the fields of electrochemistry and gerontology. For quantifying their relations, we estimate the g-index, ψ-index, and their cores and ratios of cores via a second-order Taylor series when the e-index, h-index, and C1 (the maximum number of citations received by a paper) are known. Then we find for the two empirical cases, that ratios of cores and average citations are approximately stable. Compared with the g-index, the offset-ability of the h-index decreases by 20% but the average citations increase by 20%. A similar observation holds for the comparison of the g-index and ψ-index. To explore the possible applications of cores of different indices, we apply them to extract the core structure of a network. The h-core is the most efficient, while the ψ-core includes more nodes with high betweenness.  相似文献   

14.
We axiomatize the well-known Hirsch index (h-index), which evaluates researcher productivity and impact on a field, and formalize a new axiom called head-independence. Under head-independence, a decrease, to some extent, in the number of citations of “frequently cited papers” has no effect on the index. Together with symmetry and axiom D, head-independence uniquely characterizes the h-index on a certain domain of indices. Some relationships between our axiomatization and those in the literature are also investigated.  相似文献   

15.
Recently Woeginger [Woeginger, G. H. (2008-a). An axiomatic characterization for the Hirsch-index. Mathematical Social Sciences. An axiomatic analysis of Egghe's g-index. Journal of Informetrics] introduced a set of axioms for scientific impact measures. These lead to a characterization of the h-index. In this note we consider a slight generalization and check which of Woeginger's axioms are satisfied by the g-index, the h(2)-index and the R2-index.  相似文献   

16.
This study presents a unique approach in investigating the knowledge diffusion structure for the field of data quality through an analysis of the main paths. We study a dataset of 1880 papers to explore the knowledge diffusion path, using citation data to build the citation network. The main paths are then investigated and visualized via social network analysis. This paper takes three different main path analyses, namely local, global, and key-route, to depict the knowledge diffusion path and additionally implements the g-index and h-index to evaluate the most important journals and researchers in the data quality domain.  相似文献   

17.
In this paper a generalisation of the h-index and g-index is given on the basis of non-negative real-valued functionals defined on subspaces of the vector space generated by the ordered samples. Several Hirsch-type measures are defined and their basic properties are analysed. Empirical properties are illustrated using examples from the micro- and meso-level. Among these measures, the h-index proved the most, the arithmetic and geometric g-indices, the least robust measures. The μ-index and the harmonic g-index provide more balanced results and are still robust enough.  相似文献   

18.
In the present paper the Percentage Rank Position (PRP) index concluding from the principle of Similar Distribution of Information Impact in different fields of science (Vinkler, 2013), is suggested to assess journals in different research fields comparatively. The publications in the journals dedicated to a field are ranked by citation frequency, and the PRP-index of the papers in the elite set of the field is calculated. The PRP-index relates the citation rank number of the paper to the total number of papers in the corresponding set. The sum of the PRP-index of the elite papers in a journal, PRP(j,F) may represent the eminence of the journal in the field. The non-parametric and non-dimensional PRP(j,F) index of journals is believed to be comparable across fields.  相似文献   

19.
In this paper we attempt to assess the impact of journals in the field of forestry, in terms of bibliometric data, by providing an evaluation of forestry journals based on data envelopment analysis (DEA). In addition, based on the results of the conducted analysis, we provide suggestions for improving the impact of the journals in terms of widely accepted measures of journal citation impact, such as the journal impact factor (IF) and the journal h-index. More specifically, by modifying certain inputs associated with the productivity of forestry journals, we have illustrated how this method could be utilized to raise their efficiency, which in terms of research impact can then be translated into an increase of their bibliometric indices, such as the h-index, IF or eigenfactor score.  相似文献   

20.
The Hirsch index is a number that synthesizes a researcher's output. It is the maximum number h such that the researcher has h papers with at least h citations each. Woeginger [Woeginger, G. J. (2008a). An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch-index. Mathematical Social Sciences, 56(2), 224–232; Woeginger, G. J. (2008b). A symmetry axiom for scientific impact indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 298–303] characterizes the Hirsch index when indices are assumed to be integer-valued. In this note, the Hirsch index is characterized, when indices are allowed to be real-valued, by adding to Woeginger's monotonicity two axioms in a way related to the concept of monotonicity.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号