Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Science and Society. Assessment of Research Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. Commonly Used Indexes for Assessment of Research Production

verfasst von : Nikolay K. Vitanov

Erschienen in: Science Dynamics and Research Production

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In this chapter, selected indicators and indexes (constructed on the basis of research publications and/or on the basis of a set of citations of these publications) are discussed. These indexes are frequently used for assessment of production of individual researchers. The chapter begins with several general remarks about indicators and indexes used in scientometrics. Then the famous h-index of Hirsch, its variants, and indexes complementary to the h-index are discussed. Next the g-index of Egghe as well as the \(i_n\)-indexes are described. The h-index, g-index, and \(i_n\)-indexes may provide a minimum of information for the quantitative part of assessment of the production of a researcher. Numerous indexes are described further in the text such as the m-index, p-index, \(IQ_p\)-index, A-index, R-index. The discussion of indexes continues with a discussion of indexes for the success of a researcher. In addition, a short list of indexes for quantitative characterization of research networks and their dynamics is presented.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Science and Society. Assessment of Research
Nächstes Kapitel Additional Indexes and Indicators for Assessment of Research Production
Literatur
1.
P. Vinkler, The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators (Chandos, Oxford, 2010)CrossRef
2.
J. King, A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. J. Inf. Sci. 13, 261–276 (1987)CrossRef
3.
R. Todorov, W. Glänzel, Journal citation measures: a concise review. J. Inf. Sci. 14, 47–56 (1988)CrossRef
4.
H.F. Moed, Bibliometric indicators reflect publication and management strategies. Scientometrics 47, 323–346 (2000)CrossRef
5.
P. Vinkler, An attempt for defining some basic categories of scientometrics and classifying the indicators of evaluative scientometrics. Scientometrics 50, 539–544 (2001)CrossRef
6.
P. Vinkler, An attempt of surveying and classifying bibliometric indicators for scientometric purposes. Scientometrics 13, 239–259 (1988)CrossRef
7.
L.M. Raisig, Mathematical evaluation of the scientific serial. Science 131, 1417–1419 (1960)CrossRef
8.
E. Garfield, Citation Indexing—its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities (Wiley, New York, 1979)
9.
E. Garfield, Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178, 471–479 (1972)CrossRef
10.
E. Garfield, Journal impact factor: a brief review. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 161, 979–980 (1999)
11.
M. Zitt, H. Small, Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: the audience factor. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1856–1860 (2008)CrossRef
12.
M. Zitt, Citing-side normalization of journal impact: a robust variant of the audience factor. J. informetr. 4, 392–406 (2010)CrossRef
13.
M. Chew, E.V. Villanueva, M.B. van der Weyden, Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994–2005) and their Editors’ views. J. R. Soc. Med. 100, 142–150 (2007)
14.
E. Garfield, The impact factor and using it correctly. Unfallchirurg 101, 413–414 (1998)
15.
E. Garfield, The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 295, 90–93 (2006)CrossRef
16.
M. Zitt, The journal impact factor: Angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on J. K. Vanclay’s article 2011. Scientometrics 92, 485–503 (2012)CrossRef
17.
S.J. Bensman, Garfield and the impact factor. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 41, 93–155 (2007)CrossRef
18.
I. Marshakova-Shaikevich, The standard impact factor as an evaluation tool of science fields and scientific journals. Scientometrics 35, 283–290 (1996)CrossRef
19.
R. Rousseau, Median and percentile impact factors: a set of new indicators. Scientometrics 63, 431–441 (2005)CrossRef
20.
N. De Bellis, Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics (Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD, 2009)
21.
G. Abramo, C.A. D’Angelo, F. Di Costa, Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable? Scientometrics 84, 821–833 (2010)CrossRef
22.
J.M. Campanario, Empirical study of journal impact factors obtained using the classical two-year citation window versus a five-year citation window. Scientometrics 87, 189–204 (2011)
23.
G. Buela-Casal, I. Zych, What do the scientists think about the impact factor? Scientometrics 92, 281–292 (2012)
24.
P. Ingwersen, The calculation of Web impact factors. J. Doc. 54, 236–243 (1998)CrossRef
25.
P. Ingwersen, The pragmatics of a diachronic journal impact factor. Scientometrics 92, 319–324 (2012)
26.
M.R. Elkins, C.G. Maher, R.D. Herbert, A.M. Moseley, C. Sherrington, Correlation between the journal impact factor and three other journal citation indices. Scientometrics 85, 81–93 (2010)CrossRef
27.
M.C. Calver, J.S. Bradley, Should we use the mean citations per paper to summarise a journal’s impact or to rank journals in the same field? Scientometrics 81, 611–615 (2009)
28.
L. Leydesdorff, T. Opthof, Scopus’s source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 2365–2369 (2010)
29.
M. Amin, M. Mabe, Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspect. Publ. 1, 1–6 (2000)
30.
H.F. Moed, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation (Springer, Berlin, 2005)
31.
32.
H.F. Moed, T.N. van Leeuwen, Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Information’s journal impact factors. J. Am. Soc. for Inf. Sci. 46, 461–467 (1995)CrossRef
33.
H.F. Moed, T.N. van Leeuwen, J. Reedijk, Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact. Scientometrics 46, 575–589 (1999)CrossRef
34.
B.K. Sen, K. Shailendra, Evaluation of recent scientific research output by a bibliometric method. Scientometrics 23, 31–46 (1992)CrossRef
35.
A.M. Ramirez, E.O. Garcia, J.A. Del Rio, Renormalized impact factor. Scientometrics 47, 3–9 (2000)CrossRef
36.
P.O. Seglen, Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br. Med. J. 314, 498–502 (1997)CrossRef
37.
N. Sombatsompop, T. Markpin, W. Yochai, M. Saechiew, An evaluation of research performance for different subject categories using Impact Factor Point Average (IFPA) index: Thailand case study. Scientometrics 65, 293–305 (2005)CrossRef
38.
R. Mansilla, E. Köppen, G. Cocho, P. Miramontes, On the behavior of journal impact factor rank-order distribution. J. informetr. 1, 155–160 (2007)CrossRef
39.
P. Vinkler, Ratio of short term and long term impact factors and similarities of chemistry journals represented by references. Scientometrics 46, 621–633 (1999)CrossRef
40.
W. Glänzel, H.F. Moed, Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics 53, 171–193 (2002)CrossRef
41.
Value for money. Editorial. Nat. Mater. 8, 535 (2009)
42.
S.J. Dubner, S.D. Levitt, Monkey Business (The New York Times Magazine, 6 May 2005)
43.
E. Geisler, The Metrics of Science and Technology (Quorum Books, Westport, CT, 2000)
44.
B.R. Martin, J. Irvine, Assessing basic research. Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Res. Policy 12, 61–90 (1983)
45.
B.R. Martin, The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics 36, 343–362 (1996)CrossRef
46.
L. Bornmann, Scientific peer review. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 45, 197–245 (2011)CrossRef
47.
H.-D. Daniel, Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review. (VCH, Weinheim, 1993)
48.
E. Rinia, T. van Leeuwen, H. van Vuren, A.F. van Raan, Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria. Res. Policy 27, 95–107 (1998)
49.
J.M. Campanario, Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 1. Sci. Commun. 19, 181–211 (1998)CrossRef
50.
J.M. Campanario, Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 2. Sci. Commun. 19, 277–306 (1998)CrossRef
51.
M. Reinhart, Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometrics 81, 789–809 (2009)CrossRef
52.
A. Ragone, K. Mirylenka, F. Casati, M. Marchese, On peer review in computer science. Scientometrics 97, 317–356 (2013)CrossRef
53.
S. Cole, L. Rubin, J.R. Cole, Peer Review in the National Science Foundation. Phase One of a Study (National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1978)
54.
J.R. Cole, S. Cole, Peer review in the National Science Foundation. Phase Two of a Study (National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1981)
55.
F. Godlee, T. Jefferson, Peer Review in Health Sciences (BMJ Books, London, 1999)
56.
L. Butler, I. McAllister, Metrics or peer review? Evaluating the 2001 UK research assessment exercise in political science. Polit. Stud. Rev. 7, 3–17 (2009)CrossRef
57.
T. Luukkonen, Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: emerging ERC practices. Res. Eval. 21, 48–60 (2012)CrossRef
58.
W.G.G. Benda, T.C.E. Engels, The predictive validity of peer review: a selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science. Int. J. Forecast. 27, 166–182 (2010)CrossRef
59.
L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel, Selection of Research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions. Scientometrics 63, 297–320 (2005)CrossRef
60.
S. McKay, Social policy excellence—peer review or metrics? Analyzing the 2008 research assessment exercise in social work and social policy and administration. Soc. Policy Adm. 46, 526–543 (2012)
61.
L. Allen, C. Jones, K. Dolby, D. Lynn, M. Walport, Looking for landmarks: the role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS One 4(6), e5910 (2009)CrossRef
62.
L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel, Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review—A citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants. Scientometrics 68, 427–440 (2006)CrossRef
63.
L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel, Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1841–1852 (2008)CrossRef
64.
L. Bornmann, G. Wallon, A. Ledin, Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes. PloS One 3, e3480 (2008)CrossRef
65.
V. Bence, C. Oppenheim, The influence of peer review on the research assessment exercise. J. Inf. Sci. 30, 36–347 (2004)
66.
L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel, Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of committee peer review. B.I.F. Futura 19, 7–19 (2004)
67.
A. Schubert, T. Braun, Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 9, 281–291 (1986)CrossRef
68.
R. Plomp, The highly cited papers of professors as an indicator of a research group’s scientific performance. Scientometrics 29, 377–393 (1994)CrossRef
69.
Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R.K. Merton, A. Thackray, H. Zuckerman. Toward a Metric of Science: the Advent of Science Indicators (Wiley, New York, 1978)
70.
C. Freeman, L. Soete, Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: what can we learn from the past. Res. Policy 38, 583–589 (2009)CrossRef
71.
G.N. Gilbert, Measuring the growth of science: a review of indicators of scientific growth. Scientometrics 1, 9–34 (1978)CrossRef
72.
T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Scientometrics Indicators. A 32 Country Comparison of Publication Productivity and Citation Impact (World Scientific, London, 1985)
73.
A.F.J. van Raan, Measuring science, in Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, eds. by H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2004), pp. 19–50
74.
E. Babie, The Practice of Social Research, 13th edn. (Wadsworth, Australia, 2012)
75.
W. Glänzel, B. Thijs, The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric macroindicators. Scientometrics 59, 281–310 (2004)
76.
77.
B. Thijs, W. Glänzel, The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric meso-indicators. The case of European universities. Scientometrics 66, 71–80 (2006)CrossRef
78.
M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts, Problems of citation analysis: a critical review. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 40, 342–349 (1989)CrossRef
79.
M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts, Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 36, 435–444 (1996)CrossRef
80.
L.I. Meho, C.R. Sugimoto, Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: a tale of two citation databases—Scopus and Web of Science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 2499–2508 (2009)CrossRef
81.
R.N. Kostoff, Citation analysis of research performer quality. Scientometrics 53, 49–71 (2002)CrossRef
82.
R.N. Kostoff, W.L. Martinez, Is citation normalization realistic? J. Inf. Sci. 31, 57–61 (2005)CrossRef
83.
M.H. Medoff, The efficiency of self-citations in economics. Scientometrics 69, 69–84 (2006)CrossRef
84.
K. Kousha, M. Thelwall, An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 309–320 (2015)CrossRef
85.
N.L. Geller, J.S. de Cani, R.E. Davies, Lifetime-citation rates to compare scientists’ work. Soc. Sci. Res. 7, 256–345 (1978)CrossRef
86.
N.L. Geller, J.S. de Cani, R.E. Davies, Lifetime-citation rates: a mathematical model to compare scientists’ work. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 32, 3–15 (1081)
87.
C.S. Lin, M.H. Huang, D.Z. Chen, The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count. J. Informetr. 7, 611–621 (2013)CrossRef
88.
G. Abramo, C.A. D’Angelo, F. Rosati, The importance of accounting for the number of co-authors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences. J. Informetr. 7, 198–208 (2013)CrossRef
89.
L.M.A. Bettencourt, D.I. Kaiser, J. Kaur, Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks. J. Informetr. 3, 210–221 (2009)CrossRef
90.
D.W. Aksnes, A. Rip, Researchers’ perceptions of citations. Res. Policy 38, 895–905 (2009)CrossRef
91.
S. Lehman, A.D. Jackson, B.E. Lautrup, A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific performance. Scientometrics 76, 369–390 (2008)CrossRef
92.
W. Glänzel, K. Debackere, B. Thijs, A. Schubert, A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics 67, 263–277 (2006)CrossRef
93.
A.J. Chapman, Assessing research: citation-count shortcomings. Psychol.: Bull. Br. Psychol. Soc. 8, 339–341 (1989)
94.
P. Wouters, The citation culture. Academisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam (1999)
95.
W. Glänzel, U. Schoepflin, A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Inf. Process. Manag. 35, 31–44 (1999)CrossRef
96.
N. Weinstock, Citation indexes, in Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science ed. by A. Kent, vol. 5 (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1971), pp. 16–41
97.
E. Garfield, I.H. Sher, New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. Am. Doc. 14, 195–201 (1963)CrossRef
98.
M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts, Problems of citation analysis: a critical review. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 40, 342–349 (1989)CrossRef
99.
S.M. Lawani, On the heterogeneity and classification of author self-citations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 33, 281–284 (1982)CrossRef
100.
W. Glänzel, B. Thijs, B. Schlemmer, A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication. Scientometrics 59, 63–77 (2004)
101.
S. Alonso, F.J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, \(h\)-index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J. Informetr. 3, 273–289 (2009)CrossRef
102.
P. Jasco, The pros and cons of computing \(h\)-index using Google Scholar. Online Inf. Rev. 32, 437–452 (2008)CrossRef
103.
P. Jacso, The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Scopus. Online Inf. Rev. 32, 524–535 (2008)
104.
P. Jacso, Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster. Libr. Trends 56, 784–815 (2008)
105.
S. Redner, On the meaning of the \(h\)-index. J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. L03005 (2010)
106.
E. Csajbok, A. Berhidi, L. Vasas, A. Schubert, Hirsch-index for countries based on Essential Science Indicators data. Scientometrics 73, 91–117 (2007)CrossRef
107.
L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel, What do we know about \(h\)-index. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 1381–1385 (2007)CrossRef
108.
W. Glänzel, On the \(h\)-index—A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation. Scientometrics 67, 315–321 (2006)CrossRef
109.
L. Egghe, The influence of transformations on the \(h\)-index and the \(g\)-index. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1304–1312 (2008)CrossRef
110.
W. Glänzel. On the opportunities and limitations of the \(h\)-index. Sci. Focus 1, 10–11 (2006)
111.
L. Bornmann, The state of \(h\)-index research. EMBO Rep. 10, 2–6 (2009)CrossRef
112.
B. Cronin, L. Melo, Using the \(h\)—index to rank influential information scientists. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57, 1275–1278 (2006)CrossRef
113.
A. Schubert, Using the \(h\)-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics 78, 559–565 (2008)CrossRef
114.
W. Glänzel, \(h\)-index for price medalists. ISSI Newsl. 4, 15–18 (2005)
115.
R. Rousseau, Reflections on recent developments of the \(h\)-index and \(h\)-type of indices. COLLNET J. Sci. Inf. Manage. 2, 1–8 (2008)
116.
L. Egghe, I.K. Ravichandra Rao, Study of different \(h\)-indexes for groups of authors. J. Am. Soci. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1276–1281 (2008)CrossRef
117.
R. Rousseau, A case study: evolution of JASIS’ Hirsch index. Sci. Focus 1, 16–17 (2006)
118.
L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, H.-D. Daniel, The \(h\)-index research output measurement: two approaches to enhance its accuracy. J. Informetr. 4, 407–414 (2010)CrossRef
119.
L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, An infometric model for the Hirsch-index. Scientometrics 69, 121–129 (2006)CrossRef
120.
R. Rousseau, The influence of missing publications on the Hirsch index. J. Informetr. 1, 2–7 (2007)CrossRef
121.
M. Norris, C. Oppenheim, Peer review and the h-index: two studies. J. Informetr. 4, 221–232 (2010)CrossRef
122.
M. Norris, C. Oppenheim, The h-index: a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator. J. Doc. 66, 681–705 (2010)CrossRef
123.
L. Egghe, Dynamic \(h\)-index: the Hirsch index in function of time. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 452–454 (2007)CrossRef
124.
M. Henzinger, J. Sunol, I. Weber, The stability of the h-index. Scientometrics 84, 465–479 (2009)CrossRef
125.
R. Burrows, Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. Sociol. Rev. 60, 355–372 (2012)
126.
X. Hu, R. Rousseau, J. Chen, In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. J. Inf. Sci. 36, 73–85 (2010)
127.
L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, A \(h\)-index weighted by citation impact. Inf. Process. Manag. 44, 770–780 (2008)CrossRef
128.
L. Egghe, Modelling successive \(h\)-indexes. Scientometrics 77, 377–387 (2008)CrossRef
129.
J.E. Iglesias, C. Pecharroman, Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics 73, 303–320 (2007)CrossRef
130.
R. Guns, R. Rousseau, Real and rational variants of the \(h\)-index and \(g\)-index. J. Informetr. 3, 64–71 (2009)CrossRef
131.
L. Egghe, L. Liang, R. Rousseau, A relation between \(h\)-index and impact factor in the power-law model. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 2362–2365 (2009)CrossRef
132.
J. Bar-Ilan, Which \(h\)-index? A comparison of WoS Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74, 257–271 (2008)CrossRef
133.
L. Egghe, Mathematical theory of the \(h\)- and \(g\)-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1608–1616 (2008)CrossRef
134.
J.E. Hirsch, An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS 102, 16569–16572 (2005)CrossRef
135.
B. Cronin, L.I. Meho, Using the \(h\)-index to rank influential information scientists. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57, 1275–1278 (2006)CrossRef
136.
T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientist 19, 8 (2005)
137.
A.W. Harzing, R. van der Wal, A Google Scholar h-index for journals: an alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 41–46 (2009)CrossRef
138.
M.G. Banks, An extension of the Hirsch index: indexing scientific topics and compounds. Scientometrics 69, 161–168 (2006)CrossRef
139.
A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. J. Informetr. 1, 179–184 (2007)CrossRef
140.
A.W.F. Edwards, System to rank scientists was pedaled by Jeffreys. Nature 437(7061), 951 (2005)CrossRef
141.
F.Y. Ye, An investigation of mathematical models of the \(h\)-index. Scientometrics 81, 493–498 (2009)CrossRef
142.
L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, S.E. Hug, H.-D. Daniel, A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the \(h\) index and 37 different \(h\)-index variants. J. Informetr. 5, 346–359 (2011)
143.
N.J. van Eck, J. Waltman, Generalizing the h- and g-indices. J. Informetr. 2(4), 263–271 (2008)CrossRef
144.
L. Engqvist, J.G. Frommen, New insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 1514–1516 (2010)CrossRef
145.
J.H. Fowler, D.W. Aksnes, Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics 72, 427–437 (2007)CrossRef
146.
M.H. Huang, W.Y.C. Lin, Probing the effect of author self-citations on h-index: a case study of environmental engineering. J. Inf. Sci. 37, 453–461 (2011)CrossRef
147.
E. Gianoli, M.A. Molina-Montenegro, Insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 1283–1285 (2009)CrossRef
148.
R. Costas, T.N. van Leeuwen, M. Bordons, Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of different calculation methods. Scientometrics 82, 517–537 (2010)CrossRef
149.
150.
R. Rousseau, C. Garcia-Zorita, E. Sanz-Casado, The \(h\)-bubble. J. Informetr. 7, 294–300 (2013)CrossRef
151.
L. Zhang, B. Thijs, W. Glänzel, The diffusion of h-related literature. J. Informetr. 5, 583–593 (2011)
152.
P.D. Batista, M.G. Campiteli, O. Kinouchi, A.S. Martinez, Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics 68, 179–189 (2006)CrossRef
153.
V. Sypsa, A. Hatzakis, Assessing the impact of biomedical research in academic institutions of disparate sizes. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9, Article No. 33. doi:10.​1186/​1471-2288-9-33
154.
T.R. Anderson, R.K.S. Hankin, P.D. Killworth, Beyond the Durfee square: enhancing the \(h\)-index to score total population output. Scientometrics 76, 577–588 (2008)CrossRef
155.
N.T. Hagen, Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLOS One 3, e4021 (2008)CrossRef
156.
N.T. Hagen, Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably—not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics 84, 785–793 (2010)CrossRef
157.
X.Z. Liu, H. Fang, Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index. Scientometrics 91, 37–49 (2012)CrossRef
158.
X.Z. Liu, H. Fang, Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution. J. Informetr. 6, 557–565 (2012)CrossRef
159.
D.B. de Beaver, Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics 52(2001), 365–377 (2001)
160.
M. Schreiber, A modification of the \(h\)-index: the \(h_m\)-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. J. Informetr. 2, 211–216 (2008)CrossRef
161.
J.E. Hirsch, An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics 85, 741–754 (2010)CrossRef
162.
S. Galam, Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional \(gh\)-index. Scientometrics 89, 365–379 (2011)CrossRef
163.
D. de Solla Price, Multiple authorship. Science 212(4498), 986–986 (1981)CrossRef
164.
G. van Hooydonk, Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: consequences for the impact of authors. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 48, 944–945 (1997)CrossRef
165.
L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, G. van Hooydonk, Methods for acrediting publications to authors or countries: consequences for evaluation studies. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 51, 145–157 (2000)CrossRef
166.
J. Stallings, E. Vance, J. Yang, M.W. Vanier, J. Liang, L. Pang, L. Dai, I. Ye, G. Wang, Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index. PNAS 110, 9680–9685 (2013)MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
167.
L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, H.-D. Daniel, Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the \(h\)-index? A comparison of nine different variants of the \(h\)-index using data from biomedicine. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 830–837 (2008)CrossRef
168.
P. Dorta-Gonzales, M.-I. Dorta-Gonzales, Central indexes to the citation distribution: a complement to the \(h\)-index. Scientometrics 88, 729–745 (2011)CrossRef
169.
W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Hirsch-type characteristics of the tail of distributions. J. Informetr. 4, 118–123 (2010)
170.
L. Egghe, Characteristic scores and scales based on \(h\)-type indices. J. Informetr. 4, 14–22 (2010)CrossRef
171.
W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact. J. Inf. Sci. 14, 123–127 (1988)
172.
L. Egghe, Characteristic scores and scales in a Lotkaian framework. Scientometrics 83, 455–462 (2010)CrossRef
173.
A. Sidiropoulos, D. Katsaros, Y. Manolopoulos, Ranking and identifying influential scientists versus mass producers by the Perfectionism Index. Scientometrics 103, 1–31 (2015)CrossRef
174.
F. Ye, L. Leydesdorff, The academic trace of the performance matrix: a mathematical synthesis of the \(h\)-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3). J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65, 742–750 (2014)CrossRef
175.
S.V. Dorogovtsev, J.F.F. Mendes, Ranking scientists. Nat. Phys. 11, 882–883 (2010)CrossRef
176.
M.A. Garzia-Perez, An extension of the \(h\)-index that covers the tail and the top of the citation curve and allows ranking researchers with similar \(h\). J. Informetr. 6, 689–699 (2012)CrossRef
177.
M. Schreiber, Self-citations corrections to the Hirsch index. Europhys. Lett. 78, Art. No. 30002 (2007)
178.
M. Schreiber, The influence of self-citation corrections on the Egghe’s g-index. Scientometrics 76, 187–200 (2008)CrossRef
179.
M.A. Garcia-Perez, A multidimensional extension to Hirsch’s \(h\)-index. Scientometrics 81, 779–785 (2009)CrossRef
180.
A. Schubert, Successive \(h\)-indices. Scientometrics 70, 201–205 (2007)CrossRef
181.
A. Schubert, A Hirsch-type index of co-author partnership ability. Scientometrics 91, 303–308 (2011)CrossRef
182.
F.J. Cabrerizo, S. Alonso, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herera, \(q^2\)-index: quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core. J. Informetr. 4, 23–28 (2010)CrossRef
183.
S. Alonso, F.J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, \(hg\)-index: a new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the \(h\)-and \(g\)-indices. Scientometrics 82, 391–400 (2009)CrossRef
184.
S. Moussa, M. Touzani, Ranking marketing journals using the Google-based \(hg\)-index. J. Informetr. 4, 107–117 (2010)CrossRef
185.
L. Egghe, An improvement of the \(h\)-index: the \(g\)-index. ISSI Newsl. 2, 8–9 (2006)
186.
L. Egghe, Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 69, 131–152 (2006)CrossRef
187.
L. Egghe, An econometric property of the \(g\)-index. Inf. Process. Manage. 45, 484–489 (2009)CrossRef
188.
L. Egghe, The Hirsch-index and related impact measures. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 44, 65–114 (2010)CrossRef
189.
M. Schreiber, How to modify the g-index for multi-authored manuscripts. J. Informetr. 4, 42–54 (2010)CrossRef
190.
M. Schreiber, A case study of the modified g-index: counting multi-author publications fractionally. J. Informetr. 4, 636–643 (2010)CrossRef
191.
R. Costas, M. Bordons, Is \(g\)-index better than the \(h\)-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics 77, 267–288 (2008)CrossRef
192.
G. Prathap, The 100 most prolific economists using the \(p\)-index. Scientometrics 84, 167–172 (2010)CrossRef
193.
G. Prathap, The energy-exergy-entropy (or EEE) sequences in bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics 87, 515–524 (2011)CrossRef
194.
J. Antonakis, R. Lalive, Quantifying scholarly impact: \(IQ_p\) versus the Hirsch index. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 956–969 (2008)CrossRef
195.
B.-H. Jin, L.-M. Liang, R. Rousseau, L. Egghe, The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. Chin. Sci. Bull. 52(6), 855–863 (2007)CrossRef
196.
R. Rousseau, F.Y. Ye, A proposal for a dynamic \(h\)-type index. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1853–1855 (2008)CrossRef
197.
Q.L. Burrell, Hirsch index or Hirsch rate? Some thoughts arising from Liang’s data. Scientometrics 73, 19–28 (2007)CrossRef
198.
L. Waltman, N.J. van Eck, T.N. van Leeuween, M.S. Visser, A.F.J. van Raan, Towards new crown indicator: an empirical analysis. Scientometrics 87, 467–481 (2011)CrossRef
199.
R.E. de Bruin, A. Kint, M. Luwel, H.F. Moed, A study of research evaluation and planning. Res. Eval. 3, 25–41 (1993)CrossRef
200.
T. Braun, W. Glänzel, United Germany: the new scientific superpower? Scientometrics 19, 513–521 (1990)
201.
H.F. Moed, R.E. de Bruin, T.N. van Leeuween, New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics 33, 381–422 (1995)
202.
P. Vinkler, Eminence of scientists in the light of the \(h\)-index and other scientometrics indicators. J. Inf. Sci. 33, 481–491 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRef
203.
T.J. Phelan, A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics 45, 117–136 (1999)CrossRef
204.
T.J. Phelan, Is Australian educational research worthwhile? Aust. J. Educ. 44, 175–194 (2000)CrossRef
205.
P. Vinkler, The \(\pi \)-index. A new indicator for assessing scientific impact. J. Inf. Sci. 35, 602–612 (2009)CrossRef
206.
J. Wu, Investigating the universal distributions of normalized indicators and developing field-independing index. J. Informetr. 7, 63–71 (2013)CrossRef
207.
F. Franceschini, M. Galetto, D. Maisano, L. Mastrogiacomo, The success-index: an alternative approach to the \(h\)-index for evaluating an individuals research output. Scientometrics 92, 621–641 (2012)CrossRef
208.
F. Franceschini, M. Galetto, D. Maisano, L. Mastrogiacomo, Further clarifications about the success-index. J. Informetr. 6, 669–673 (2012)CrossRef
209.
F. Francheschini, M. Galeto, M. Maisano, L. Mastrogiacomo, An infometric model for the success index. J. Informetr. 7, 109–116 (2013)CrossRef
210.
L. Egghe, Impact coverage of the success index. J. Informetr. 8, 384–389 (2014)CrossRef
211.
M. Kosmulski, Successful papers: a new idea in evaluation of scientific output. J. Informetr. 5, 481–485 (2011)CrossRef
212.
P. Vinkler, Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics 10, 157–177 (1986)CrossRef
213.
A.-L. Barabasi, Linked. How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and Ehat it Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life (Basic Books, New York, 2014)
214.
M. Newman, A.-L. Barabasi, D.J. Watts, The Structure and Dynamics of Networks (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006)MATH
215.
A.-L. Barabasi, Z.N. Oltivai, Network biology: understanding the cell’s functional organization. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 101–113 (2004)CrossRef
216.
H. Jeong, B. Tombor, R. Albert, Z.N. Oltivai, A.-L. Barabasi, The large-scale organization of metabolic networks. Nature 407(6804), 651–654 (2000)CrossRef
217.
R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani, Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86(14), 3200–3203 (2001)CrossRef
218.
D. Smilkov, C.A. Hidalgo, L. Kocarev, Beyond network structure: how heterogeneous susceptibility modulates the spread of epidemics
219.
R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani, Epidemic dynamics and endemic states in complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 63, Art. No. 0661117 (2001)
220.
L. Isella, J. Stehle, A. Barrat, C. Cattuto, J.-F. Pinton, W. van den Broeck, What’s in a crowd? Analysis of face-to-face behavioral networks. J. Theor. Biol. 271, 166–180 (2011)CrossRef
221.
A.-L. Barabasi, The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. Nature 435(7039), 207–211 (2005)CrossRef
222.
S. Fortunato, M. Brathelemy, Resolution limit in community detection. PNAS 104, 36–41 (2007)CrossRef
223.
G. Palla, I. Derenyi, I. Farkas, T. Vicsek, Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society. Nature 435, 814–818 (2005)CrossRef
224.
A. Lancichinetti, S. Fortunato, Community detection algorithms: a comparative analysis. Phys. Rev. E 80, Art. No. 056117 (2009)
225.
J.J. Ramasco, S.N. Dorogovtsev, R. Pastor-Satorras, Self-organization of collaboration networks. Phys. Rev. E 70, Art. No. 036106 (2004)
226.
A. Scharnhorst, M. Thelwall, Cytation and hyperlink networks. Curr. Sci. 89, 1518–1523 (2005)
227.
G. Ahuja, Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: a longitudinal study. Adm. Sci. Q. 45, 425–455 (2000)CrossRef
228.
F. Havemann, A. Scharnhornst, bibliometrische netzwerke, in Handbuch Netzwerkforschung, eds. by C. Stegbauer, R. Häusling (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 799–823
229.
A. Pyka, A. Scharnhorst (eds.), Innovation networks. New Approaches in Modeling and Analyzing (Springer, Berlin, 2009)
230.
A. Scharnhorst, Citation-networks, science landscapes and evolutionary strategies. Scientometrics 43, 95–106 (1998)CrossRef
231.
J. Ortega, I. Aguillo, V. Cothey, A. Scharnhorst, Maps of the academic web in the European Higher Education Area—an exploration of visual web indicators. Scientometrics 74, 295–308 (2007)CrossRef
232.
233.
B. Kozma, A. Barrat, Consensus formation on adaptive networks. Phys. Rev. E 77, Art. No. 016102 (2008)
234.
S. Fortunato, V. Latora, A. Pluchino, A. Rapisarda, Vector opinion dynamics in a bounded confidence consensus model. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 16, 1535–1551 (2005)MATHCrossRef
235.
L. Dall’Asta, A. Baroncheli, A. Barrat, V. Loreto, Agreement dynamics on small-world networks. Europhys. Lett. 73, 969–975 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRef
236.
237.
R. Albert, A.-L. Barabasi, Topology of evolving networks: local events and Universality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5234–5237 (2000)CrossRef
238.
R. Albert, I. Albert, G.L. Nakarado, Structural vulnerability of the North American power grid. Phys. Rev. E 69, Art. No. 025103 (2004)
239.
R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani, Evolution and structure of the internet: a statistical physics approach. Evolution and Structure of the Internet (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)
240.
A. Reka, H. Jeong, A.-L. Barabasi, Diameter of the World Wide Web. Nature 401, 130–131 (1999)CrossRef
241.
A. Vazquez, R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani, Large-scale topological and dynamical properties of the Internet. Phys. Rev. E 65, Art. No. 066130 (2002)
242.
Y. Moreno, M. Nekovee, A.F. Pacheco, Dynamics of rumor spreading in complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 69, Art. No. 066130 (2004)
243.
M. Nekovee, Y. Moreno, G. Bianconi, M. Marsili, Theory of rumor spreading in complex social networks. Phys. A 374, 457–470 (2007)CrossRef
244.
E. Otte, R. Rousseau, Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. J. Inf. Sci. 28, 441–453 (2002)CrossRef
245.
Y.-H. Eom, S. Fortunato, Characterizing and modeling citation dynamics. PLOS One 6, e24926 (2011)CrossRef
246.
F. Raddichi, S. Fortunato, B. Markines, A. Vespignani, Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists. Phys. Rev. E 80, Art. No. 056103 (2009)
247.
A. Schubert, A. Korn, A. Telcs, Hirsch-type indices for characterizing networks. Scientometrics 78, 375–382 (2009)CrossRef
248.
F. Mali, L. Kronegger, P. Doreian, A. Ferligoj, Dynamics scientific co-authorship networks, in Models of Science Dynamics, eds. by A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, P. van den Besselaar (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 195–232
249.
F. Raddichi, S. Fortunato, A. Vespigniani, Citation networks, in Models of Science Dynamics, eds. by A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, P. van den Besselaar (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 233–257
250.
L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics 55, 349–361 (2002)CrossRef
251.
Y. Ding, E.J. Yan, A. Frazho, J. Caverlee, PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 2229–2243 (2009)CrossRef
252.
P. Chen, S. Redner, Community structure of the physical review citation network. J. Informetr. 4, 278–290 (2010)CrossRef
253.
S.X. Zhao, R. Roussseau, F.Y. Ye, \(h\)-degree as a basic measure in weighted networks. J. Informetr. 5, 668–677 (2011)CrossRef
254.
A. Abbasi, L. Hossain, L. Leydesdorf, Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. J. Informetr. 6, 403–412 (2012)CrossRef
255.
L.C. Freeman, Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw. 1, 215–239 (1978)CrossRef
256.
X. Yan, L. Zhai, W. Fan, C-index: a weighted network mode centrality measure for collaboration competence. J. Informetr. 7, 223–239 (2013)
257.
A. Korn, A. Schubert, A. Telcs, Lobby index in networks. Phys. A 388, 2221–2226 (2009)CrossRef
258.
M.G. Campiteli, A.J. Holanda, L.D.H. Soares, P.R.C. Soles, O. Kinouchi, Lobby index as a network centrality measure. Phys. A 392, 5511–5515 (2013)CrossRef
259.
M. Ausloos, A scientometric law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core. Scientometrics 95, 895–909 (2013)CrossRef
260.
P. Jaccard, The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. New Phytol. 11, 37–50 (1912)CrossRef
261.
M. Levandowsky, D. Winter, Distance between sets. Nature 234(5), 34–35 (1971)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Commonly Used Indexes for Assessment of Research Production
verfasst von
Nikolay K. Vitanov
Copyright-Jahr
2016
Buch
Science Dynamics and Research Production

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41629-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-41631-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41631-1_2