Abstract
In 2005 Hirsch introduced h-index to evaluate the research output of researchers. This had initiated a debate in the scientific community. Many researchers have evaluated the feasibility of h-index in different scientific domains. Some remained successful while others criticized the effectiveness of h-index in the domains they evaluated. After a decade of this proposal, Dienes critically evaluated the original h-index and have claimed that h index lacks something intrinsic in its definition. Subsequently Dienes introduced a conversion factor based on entire community of one domain to complete the definition of h index. Dienes has not evaluated the conversion factor on actual data; rather they have just proposed mathematical formulations. The aim of our research is to calculate that factor for the field of Mathematics and then after computing completing-h value for all the authors in this community, we have compared our results with h-index (original) and g-index values considering award winners as benchmark. We found out that complete-h contributes positively and shows comparatively better results than h-index and g-index. In top 1000 authors ranked according to these indices 95 award winners were found in complete-h, 76 were found in h-index and 64 were found when authors were ranked according to g-index.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Afzal, M. T., & Maurer, H. A. (2011). Expertise recommender system for scientific community. Journal of UCS, 17(11), 1529–1549.
Aoun, S. G., Bendok, B. R., Rahme, R. J., Dacey, R. G., & Batjer, H. H. (2013). Standardizing the evaluation of scientific and academic performance in neurosurgery—Critical review of the “h” index and its variants. World Neurosurgery, 80(5), e85–e90.
Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009). Google Scholar’s ranking algorithm: The impact of citation counts (an empirical study). In Third international conference on research challenges in information science RCIS, IEEE (pp. 439–446).
Bornmann, L. (2014). h-index research in scientometrics: A summary. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 749–750.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). 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. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830–837.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 346–359.
Bosman, J., Mourik, I. V., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E., &Verhoeff, H. (2006). Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. A technical report in Utrecht University Library.
De Winter, J. C., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547–1565.
Demaine, J. (2011). Variants and extensions of the h-index. Vienna: European Summer School for Scientoemtrics.
Dienes, K. R. (2015). Completing h. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 385–397.
Dunaiski, M. P. (2014). Analysing ranking algorithms and publication trends on scholarly citation networks. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
Dunaiski, M., Visser, W., & Geldenhuys, J. (2016). Evaluating paper and author ranking algorithms using impact and contribution awards. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 392–407.
Egghe, L. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: The g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 8–9.
Galam, S. (2011). Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: A fractional gh-index. Scientometrics, 89(1), 365–379.
García-Pérez, M. A. (2012). An extension of the h index that covers the tail and the top of the citation curve and allows ranking researchers with similar h. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 689–699.
Harzing, A. W. (2010). Citation analysis across disciplines: The Impact of different data sources and citation metrics, www.harzing.com white paper. http://www.harzing.com/data_metrics_comparison.htm. Accessed 19 Jan 2015.
Harzing, A. W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel Prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1057–1075.
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.
Harzing, A. W., & Wal, R. V. (2007). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 61–73.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.
Jean-François, G., Laetitia, R., & Stefan, D. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(1), 1.
Kosmulski, M. (2006). A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(3), 4–6.
Lopes, G. R., Moro, M. M., Wives, L. K., & De Oliveira, J. P. M. (2010). Collaboration recommendation on academic social networks. In International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (pp. 190–199). Berlin: Springer.
Moed, H. F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation (Vol. 9). Berlin: Springer.
Neuhaus, E., Neuhaus, C., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127–141.
Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170–180.
Okhovati, M., Bazrafshan, A., Zare, M., Moradzadeh, M., & Mokhtari, A. M. (2015). Research performance measures and the moderating role of faculty characteristics in epidemiology. Global Journal of Health Science, 8(5), 72.
Schoonbaert, D., & Roelants, G. (1996). Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: Quality assessment tool or comedy of errors? Tropical Medicine & International Health, 1(6), 739–752.
Schreiber, M. (2015). A variant of the h-index to measure recent performance. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2373–2380.
Schreiber, M., Malesios, C. C., & Psarakis, S. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis for the Hirsch index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 347–358.
Walters, W. H. (2009). Google Scholar search performance: Comparative recall and precision. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 5–24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ayaz, S., Afzal, M.T. Identification of conversion factor for completing-h index for the field of mathematics. Scientometrics 109, 1511–1524 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2122-z
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2122-z