Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Overview of Author-Level Indicators of Research Performance

  • Chapter
Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators

Part of the book series: Springer Handbooks ((SHB))

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to present a critical overview of author-level indicators of research production ( ), discuss their appropriate application and provide a tool to support the informed use of ALIRP. A brief history of the development of ALIRP begins with a chronological discussion of the major trends in indicator development, which documents the quick adaptation of ALIRP in evaluation practice, and consequently sets the argument for the need to monitor and evaluate present-day indicator production, which is the major theme of this chapter. The characteristics and common mathematical properties of ALIRP are used to highlight the challenges we face in applying appropriate ALIRP in evaluation. The construction and validity of 69 ALIRP are analyzed, and the results presented in table form for easy reference. These tables are also available as interactive tables provided as e-material to this chapter. This analysis, combined with the deconstruction of indicators in the chapter sections, argues that ALIRP are mathematical models, and the numerical values they produce should never be confused with the reality they are trying to model in evaluation practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. J.E. Hirsch: An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102(46), 16569–16572 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. L. Wildgaard, J.W. Schneider, B. Larsen: A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators, Scientometrics 101(1), 125–158 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. S. Alonso, F. Cabreriazo, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herra: H-index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields, J. Informetr. 3(4), 273–289 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. J. Bollen, H. Van de Sompel, A. Hagberg, R. Chute: A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures, PLoS One 4(6), e6022 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. F.J. Cabrerizo: H-index and variants, Soft Computing and Intelligent Information Systems, http://sci2s.ugr.es/es/node/36 (2016)

  6. L. Waltman: A review of the literature on citation impact indicators, J. Informetr. 10(2), 365–391 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. A.F.J. van Raan: Measuring science. In: Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, ed. by H. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Springer, Dordrecht 2004) pp. 19–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. R. Todeschini, A. Baccini: Handbook of Bibliometric Indicators: Quantitative Tools for Studying and Evaluating Research (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim 2016)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. L. Waltman, N.J. van Eck, T.N. van Leeuwen, M.S. Visser, A.F.J. van Raan: Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis, Scientometrics 87(3), 467–481 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. D. Hicks: The four literatures of social science. In: Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, ed. by H. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Springer, Dordrecht 2005) pp. 473–496

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. T. Castellani: Epistemological consequences of bibliometrics: Insights from the scientific community, Soc. Epistemol. Rev. Reply Collect. 3(11), 1–20 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Grant, A. Booth: A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies, Health Inf. Libr. J. 26(2), 91–108 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. A. Skupin: Discrete and continuous conceptualizations of science: Implications for knowledge domain visualization, J. Informetr. 3(3), 233–245 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. J. Antonakis, R. Lalive: Quantifying scholarly impact: IQP versus the Hirsch h, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(6), 956–969 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. R.K. Merton: The Normative Structure of Science (University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1973)

    Google Scholar 

  16. G.N. Gilbert: Referencing as persuasion, Soc. Stud. Sci. 7(1), 113–122 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. E. Garfield: Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities (Wiley, New York 1979)

    Google Scholar 

  18. H.F. Moed: Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Information Science and Knowledge Management (Springer, Dordrecht 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  19. A. Singleton: Journal ranking and selection: A review in physics, J. Doc. 32(4), 258–289 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. Merton, A. Thackray, H. Zuckerman: Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators (Wiley, New York 1978)

    Google Scholar 

  21. M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts: Problems of citation analysis, Scientometrics 36(3), 435–444 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. I. Podlubny: A note on comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science, Scientometrics 64(1), 95–99 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. T. van Leeuwen: Philosophical and theoretical considerations on bibliometric analysis. In: Proc. NWB2016, Copenhagen (2016), https://figshare.com/collections/NWB_2016_Oral_Presentations/3581192/2

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. Leydesdorff, S. Milojevic: Scientometrics, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.4566.pdf (2012)

  25. D. Hicks, P. Wouters, L. Waltman, S. de Rijcke, I. Rafols: Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics, Nature 520(7548), 429–431 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. J. Wilsdon, L. Allen, E. Belfiore, P. Campbell, S. Curry, S. Hill, R. Jones, R. Kain, S. Kerridge, M. Thelwall, J. Tinkler, I. Viney, P. Wouters, J. Hill, B. Johnson: The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363 (2015)

  27. A.L. Porter, D.E. Chubin, X.-Y. Jin: Citations and scientific progress: Comparing bibliometric measures with scientist judgments, Scientometrics 13(3/4), 103–104 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. A.J. Nederhof, A.F.J. van Raan: Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: A comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary doctorates in physics, Scientometrics 11(5), 6–333 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  29. H. Moed: A comparative study of bibliometric past performance analysis and peer judgement, Scientometrics 8(3/4), 149–159 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. M.E.D. Koenig: Bibliometric indicators versus expert opinion in assessing research performance, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 34(2), 136–145 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. A.J. Nederhof, R.A. Zwaan, R.E. De Bruin, P.J. Dekker: Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and behavioural sciences: A comparative study, Scientometrics 15(5/6), 423–435 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. H. Moed: Bibliometric measurement of research performance and Price's theory of differences among the sciences, Scientometrics 15(5), 473–483 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. H. Moed: The application of bibliometric indicators: Important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered, Scientometrics 8(3), 177–203 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. E. Garfield: From citation indexes to informetrics: Is the tail now wagging the dog?, Libri 48(2), 67–80 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. K.L. Reed: Citation analysis of faculty publication: Beyond science citation index and social science citation index, Bull. Med. Libr. Assoc. 83(4), 503–508 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. Mendez, I. Gomez, M. Bordons: Some indicators for assessing research performance without citations, Scientometrics 26(1), 157 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. X. Xia, M. Li, C.F. Xiao: Author analysis of papers published in “Space Medicine & Medical Engineering” from 1988 to 1998, Space Med. Med. Eng. (Beijing) 12(6), 431–435 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  38. M. Bordons, M.A. Zulueta, A. Cabrero, S. Barrigon: Research performance at the micro level: Analysis of structure and dynamics of pharmacological research teams, Res. Eval. 5(2), 137–142 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. H.P.F. Peters, A.F.J. van Raan: A bibliometric profile of top-scientists – a case-study in chemical-engineering, Scientometrics 29, 115–136 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. R. Plomp: The highly cited papers of professors as an indicator of a research groups scientific performance, Scientometrics 29(3), 377–393 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. P. Banerjee: Indicators of “innovation as process”, Scientometrics 43(3), 331–357 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. J. Schmoch: Indicators and the relations between science and technology, Scientometrics 38(1), 103–116 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. B. Cronin: The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication (Taylor Graham, London 1984)

    Google Scholar 

  44. L. Leydesdorff, P. Van den Besselaar: Scientometrics and communication theory: Towards theoretically informed indicators, Scientometrics 38(1), 155–174 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. W. Glänzel, U. Schoepflin: Little scientometrics, big scientometrics – and beyond?, Scientometrics 30(2/3), 375–384 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. J.S. Katz: Bibliometric standards: Personal experience and lessons learned, Scientometrics 35(2), 193–197 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. I.K. Ravichandra Rao: Methodological and conceptual questions of bibliometric standards, Scientometrics 35(2), 265–270 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. V.S. Lazarev: On chaos in bibliometric terminology, Scientometrics 35(2), 271–277 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. P. Vinkler: Some practical aspects of the standardization of scientometric indicators, Scientometrics 35(2), 235–245 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. J.S. Katz, D. Hicks: How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model, Scientometrics 40(3), 541–554 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. B.K. Sen: Mega-authorship from a bibliometric point of view, Malays. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2(2), 9–18 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  52. H. Herbertz: Does it pay to cooperate? A bibliometric case study in molecular biology, Scientometrics 33(1), 117–122 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. E. Logan: A bibliometric analysis of collaboration in a medical specialty, Scientometrics 20(3), 417–426 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. A. Abbasi, J. Altmann, J. Hwang: Evaluating scholars based on their academic collaboration activities: Two indices, the RC-index and the CC-index, for quantifying collaboration activities of researchers and scientific communities, Scientometrics 2010(83), 1–13 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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(1), 37–49 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. S. Galam: Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: A fractional gh-index, Scientometrics 89(1), 365–379 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. G. Abramo, C.A. D'Angelo, G. Murgia: Variation in research collaboration patterns across academic ranks, Scientometrics 98(3), 2275–2294 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. P. Wouters: Beyond the holy grail: From citation theory to indicator theories, Scientometrics 44(3), 561–580 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. R. Rousseau: Citation analysis as a theory of friction of polluted air?, Scientometrics 43(1), 63–67 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. L. Leydesdorff: Theories of citation?, Scientometrics 43(1), 5–25 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. J.M. Russell, R. Rousseau: Bibliometrics and institutional evaluation. In: Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) Part 19.3 Science and Technology Policy, ed. by R. Arvantis (EOLSS, Oxford 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  62. T.N. van Leeuwen, L.J. van der Wurff, A.F.J. van Raan: The use of combined bibliometric methods in research funding policy, Res. Eval. 10(3), 195–201 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. B.D. Cameron: Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses and implications, Libr. Academy 5(1), 105–125 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. R. Costas, M. Bordons: Bibliometric indicators at the micro-level: Some results in the area of natural resources at the Spanish CSIC, Res. Eval. 14(2), 110–120 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Q.L. Burrell: Ambiguity and scientometric measurement: A dissenty view, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 52(12), 1075–1080 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. D.W. Aksnes, T.B. Olsen, P.O. Seglen: Validation of bibliometric indicators in the field of microbiology: A Norwegian case study, Scientometrics 49(1), 7–22 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. K.W. Boyack, K. Börner: Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: visualizing the influence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 54(5), 447–461 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. I. Rowlands: Knowledge production, consumption and impact: Policy indicators for a changing world, ASLIB Proceedings 55(1/2), 5–12 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. M. Bordons, I. Gomez: One step further in the production of bibliometric indicators at the micro level: Differences by gender and professional category of scientists, Scientometrics 57(2), 159–173 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. S.E. Wiberley Jr.: A methodological approach to developing bibliometric models of types of humanities scholarship, Libr. Q. 73(2), 121–159 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. F. Franceshini, D. Maisano, L. Mastrogiacomo: The effect of database dirty data on h-index calculation, Scientometrics 95(3), 1179–1188 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. L. Meho, Y. Rogers: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(11), 1711–1726 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. A. Noruzi: Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes, Libri 55(4), 170–180 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. P. Jasco: Google Scholar: The pros and the cons, Online Inf. Rev. 29(2), 208–214 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. P. Jasco: As we may search: Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases, Curr. Sci. 89(9), 1537–1547 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  76. A.W. Harzing: Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences?, Scientometrics 94(1), 23–34 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. B. Minasny, A.E. Hartemink, A. McBratney, H.J. Jang: Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, PeerJ 1, e183 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. J. Bar-Ilan: Which h-index? – A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar, Scientometrics 74(2), 257–271 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. T.F. Frandsen, J. Nicolaisen: Intradisciplinary differences in database coverage and the consequences for bibliometric research, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 59(10), 1570–1581 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. M. Schreiber: An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(9), 1513–1522 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. P. Weingart: Impact of bibliometrics on the science system: Inadvertent consequences?, Scientometrics 62(1), 117–131 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. H.D. White: Authors as citers over time, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 52(2), 87–108 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. A.E. Cawkell: Understanding science by analysing its literature, Inf. Sci. 10(1), 3–10 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  84. P. Ball: Index aims for fair ranking of scientists, Nature 436(7053), 900 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. T. Marchant: Score-based bibliometric rankings of authors, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(6), 1132–1137 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. J. Panaretos, C.C. Malesios: Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices, Scientometrics 81(3), 635–670 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. M. Kosmulski: Family-tree of bibliometric indices, J. Informetr. 7(2), 313–317 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. M. Schreiber, C.C. Malesios, S. Psarakis: Exploratory factor analysis for the Hirsch index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators, J. Informetr. 6(3), 347–358 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. L. Wildgaard: Measure Up! The Extent Author-Level Bibliometric Indicators are Appropriate Measures of Individual Researcher Performance, PhD Thesis (Copenhagen University, Copenhagen 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  90. E.S. Vieira, J.A.S. Cabral, J.A.N.F. Gomes: How good is a model based on bibliometric indicators in predicting the final decisions made by peers?, J. Informetr. 8(2), 390–405 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, H. 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(5), 830–837 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. T.N. van Leeuwen: The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible, Scientometrics 66(1), 133–154 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. P. Juznic, S. Peclin, M. Zaucer, T. Mandelj, M. Pusnik, F. Demsar: Scientometric indicators: Peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests, Scientometrics 85(2), 429–441 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. G. Holden, G. Rosenberg, K. Barker: Bibliometrics, Soc. Work Health Care 41(3), 4–67 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  95. A. Pillay: Academic promotion and the h-index, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 64(12), 2598–2599 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. R. Costas, T.N. van Leeuwen, M. Bordons: A bibliometric classificatory approach for the study and assessment of research performance at the individual level: The effects of age on productivity and impact, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61(8), 1564–1581 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  97. E.S. Vieira, J.A.S. Cabral, J.A.N.F. Gomes: Definition of a model based on bibliometric indicators for assessing applicants to academic positions, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(3), 560–577 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. J.A. Eloy, P. Svider, S.S. Chandrasekhar, Q. Husain, K.M. Mauro, M. Setzen, S. Baredes: Gender disparities in scholarly productivity within academic otolaryngology departments, Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. (U.S.) 148(2), 215–222 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. U. Sandström, M. Hällsten: Gender; funding diversity and quality of research. In: Proc. ISSI 2007 – 11th Int. Conf. Int. Soc. Scientometr. Informetr. (2007) pp. 685–690

    Google Scholar 

  100. T.F. Frandsen, R.H. Jacobsen, J.A. Wallin, K. Brixen, J. Ousager: Gender differences in scientific performance: A bibliometric matching analysis of Danish health sciences graduates, J. Informetr. 9(4), 1007–1017 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. L. Egghe: On the correction of the h-index for career length, Scientometrics 96(2), 563–571 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. M. Kosmulski: New seniority-independent Hirsch-type index, J. Informetr. 3(4), 341–347 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. A.W. Harzing, S. Alakangas, D. Adams: hIa: An individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences, Scientometrics 99(3), 811–821 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. J. Claro, C.A.V. Costa: A made-to-measure indicator for cross-disciplinary bibliometric ranking of researchers performance, Scientometrics 86(1), 113–123 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. M.R. Namazi, M.K. Fallahzadeh: n-Index: A novel and easily-calculable parameter for comparison of researchers working in different scientific fields, Indian J. Dermatol. Venereol. Leprol. 76(3), 229–230 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. R. Costas, M. Bordons, T.N. van Leeuwen, A.F.J. van Raan: Scaling rules in the science system: influence of field-specific citation characteristics on the impact of individual researchers, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(4), 740–775 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. D.-Z. Chen, C.-P. Lin, M.-H. Huang, C.Y. Huang: Constructing a new patent bibliometric performance measure by using modified citation rate analyses with dynamic backward citation windows, Scientometrics 82(1), 149–163 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. B. Lepori, E. Reale, R. Tijssen: Designing indicators for policy decisions: Challenges, tensions and good practices: Introduction to a special issue, Res. Eval. 20(1), 3–5 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. L. Bornmann, R. Mutz: Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures?, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(6), 1286–1289 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. J. Iivari: Expert evaluation vs. bibliometric evaluation: Experiences from Finland, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 17, 169–173 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. W. Glänzel: The need for standards in bibliometric research and technology, Scientometrics 35(2), 167–176 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. L. Bornmann, M. Werner: How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations, Scientometrics 98(1), 487–509 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. J.F. Bach: On the Proper Use of Bibliometrics to Evaluate Individual Researchers (Académie des Sciences, Paris 2011), http://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/avis170111gb.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  114. U. Schmoch, T. Schubert, D. Jansen, R. Heidler, R. von Görtz: How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: A balanced approach, Res. Eval. 19(1), 2–18 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. E. Sandström, U. Sandström: Meeting the micro-level challenges: Bibliometrics at the individual level. In: Proc. ISSI 2009 – 12th Int. Conf. Int. Soc. Scientometr. Informetr., Vol. 2 (2009) pp. 846–856

    Google Scholar 

  116. J.L. Ortega: Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members, J. Informetr. 9(1), 39–49 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. A. Bartoli, E. Medveta: Bibliometric evaluation of researchers in the internet age, Inf. Soc. 30(5), 349–354 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. H. Browman, K. Stergiou: Factors and indices are one thing, deciding who is scholarly, why they are scholarly, and the relative value of their scholarship is something else entirely, Ethics Sci. Env. Politics 8, 1–3 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. T.N. van Leeuwen: Testing the validity of the Hirsch-index for research assessment purposes, Res. Eval. 17(2), 157–160 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. R. Costas, T.N. van Leeuwen, M. Bordons: Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: Effects of different calculation methods, Scientometrics 82(3), 517–537 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. M. Schreiber: Examples for counterintuitive behavior of the new citation-rank indicator P100 for bibliometric evaluations, J. Informetr. 8(3), 738–748 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. N. Gaster, M. Gaster: A critical assessment of the h-index, BioEssays 34(10), 830–832 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. C. Michels, U. Schmoch: Impact of bibliometric studies on the publication behaviour of authors, Scientometrics 98(1), 369–385 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. H.P.W. Bauer, G. Schui, A. von Eye, G. Krampen: How does scientific success relate to individual and organizational characteristics? A scientometric study of psychology researchers in the German-speaking countries, Scientometrics 94(2), 523–539 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. C. Bloch, J.W. Schneider: Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication Indicator at the individual level, Res. Eval. 25(4), 371–382 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  126. A. Ebadi, A. Schiffauerova: How to become an important player in scientific collaboration networks?, J. Informetr. 9(4), 809–825 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. A. Dilger, L. Lütkenhöner, H. Müller: Scholars' physical appearance, research performance, and feelings of happiness, Scientometrics 104(2), 555–573 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. D.R. Amancio, O.N. Oliveira Jr., L. da Fontoura Costa: Topological-collaborative approach for disambiguating authors' names in collaborative networks, Scientometrics 102(1), 465–485 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. M. Bordons, J. Aparicio, B. González-Albo, A.A. Díaz-Faes: The relationship between the research performance of scientists and their position in co-authorship networks in three fields, J. Informetr. 9(1), 135–144 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. J. Kim, J. Kim: Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes, J. Informetr. 9(3), 667–673 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. J.C. Nabout, M.R. Parreira, F.B. Teresa, F.M. Carneiro, H.F. da Cunha, L. de Souza Ondei, S.S. Caramori, T.N. Soares: Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): The trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers, Scientometrics 102(1), 357–364 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. A.W. Harzing: Health warning: Might contain multiple personalities—the problem of homonyms in Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators, Scientometrics 105(3), 2259–2270 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. J.W. Schneider: Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments, J. Informetr. 7(1), 50–62 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. J.W. Schneider: Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: The basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations, Scientometrics 102(1), 411–432 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. L. Waltman, N.J. van Eck: The inconsistency of the h-index, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(2), 406–415 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. G. Prathap: The inconsistency of the h-index, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(7), 1480–1481 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. L. Bornmann, H.D. Daniel: Convergent validation of peer review decisions using the h index: Extent of and reasons for type I and type II errors, J. Informetr. 1(3), 204–213 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. A.F.J. van Raan: The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results, Scientometrics 42(3), 423–428 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. W. Glänzel, A. Schubert: A characterization of scientometric distributions based on harmonic means, Scientometrics 26(1), 81–96 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. J.W. Schneider, T.N. van Leeuwen: Analysing robustness and uncertainty levels of bibliometric performance statistics supporting science policy. A case study evaluating Danish postdoctoral funding, Res. Eval. 23(4), 285–297 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. W. Glänzel: High-end performance or outlier? Evaluating the tail of scientometric distributions, Scientometrics 97(1), 13–23 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. M. Schreiber: How much do different ways of calculating percentiles influence the derived performance indicators? A case study, Scientometrics 97(3), 821–829 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. D. Bouyssou, T. Marchant: An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices, J. Informetr. 8(3), 449–477 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. G. Prathap: Quantity, quality, and consistency as bibliometric indicators, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(1), 214 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. L. Egghe, R. Rousseau: A basic indicator for relative contributions and a remarkable difference between a ratio of averages and an average of ratios, Malays. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 19(1), 17–22 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  146. J. Schulz: Using Monte Carlo simulations to assess the impact of author name disambiguation quality on different bibliometric analyses, Scientometrics 107(3), 1283–1298 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. W. Marx, L. Bornmann: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(4), 866–867 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. E. Riviera: Mapping scientific literature: structuring scientific communities through Scientometrics, Ph.D. Thesis (Università degli Studi di Milano Biocca, Milano 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  149. E. Delgado López-Cózar, N. Robinson-García, D. Torres-Salinas: The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(3), 446–454 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Z. Taşkın, U. Al: Standardization problem of author affiliations in citation indexes, Scientometrics 98(1), 347–368 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. L. Wildgaard: A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance, J. Informetr. 10(4), 1055–1078 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. L. Wildgaard: A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in astronomy, environmental science, philosophy and public health in Web of Science and Google Scholar, Scientometrics 104(3), 873–906 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. A.F.J. van Raan: Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment of 147 chemistry research groups, Scientometrics 67(3), 491–502 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. W. Glänzel, H.F. Moed: Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators, Scientometrics 96(1), 381–394 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. J.K. Vanclay: On the robustness of the h-index, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58(10), 1547–1550 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Merriam Webster Dictionary: “model”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/model

  157. Y. Gingras: Criteria for evaluating indicators. In: Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact, ed. by B. Cronin, C. Sugimoto (MIT Press, Cambridge 2014) pp. 109–125

    Google Scholar 

  158. L. Bornmann: How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics: The statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64(3), 587–595 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. P. Albarran, I. Ortuno, J. Ruiz-Castillo: Average-based versus high- and low-impact indicators for the evaluation of scientific distributions, Res. Eval. 20(4), 325–339 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. F. Ye: A Theoretical approach to the unification of informetric models by wave-heat equations, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62(6), 1208–1211 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. F. Ye: H-inconsistency is not an issue in dynamical systems, ISSI Newsletter 8(2), 22–24 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  162. T.R. Anderson, R.K.S. Hankin, P.D. Killworth: Beyond the durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output, Scientometrics 76(3), 577–588 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. G.J.J. Biesta: Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy (Routledge, New York 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  164. R. Clarke, A. Pucihar: The Web of Science revisited: Is it a tenable source for the information systems discipline or for eCommerce researchers?, http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/WoSRev.html (2012)

  165. IQP Calculator: http://www.hec.unil.ch/jantonakis/IQp%20calculator%20version%202008.xls

  166. M. Kosmulski: A new type Hirsch-index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index, ISSI Newsletter 2(3), 4–6 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  167. F.J. Caberizo, S. Alonso, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera: Q2-index: Quantitative and qualitative evolution based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core, J. Informetr. 4, 23–28 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. A. Rubem, A. de Moura, J. Soares de Mello: Comparative analysis of some individual bibliometric indices when applied to groups of researchers, Scientometrics 102(1), 1091–1035 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. C.-T. Zhang: The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations, PLoS ONE 4(5), e5429 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. S. Alonso, F.J. Caberizo, 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 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. R. Costas, M. Bordons: The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level, J. Informetr. 1(3), 193–203 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Academic careers understood through measurements and norms (ACUMEN): Portfolio, http://research-acumen.eu/portfolio

  173. C.W. Belter: Bibliometric indicators: Opportunities and limits, J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 103(4), 219–221 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. R.K. Swihart, M. Sundaram, T.O. Höök, J.A. Dewoody: Factors affecting scholarly performance by wildlife and fisheries faculty: Factors affecting bibliometrics, J. Wildl. Manag. 80(3), 563–572 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. C. Dym: Principles of Mathematical Modelling, 2nd edn. (Academic, New York 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  176. B.H. Jin: H-index: An evaluation indicator proposed by scientist, Sci. Focus 1(1), 8–9 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  177. L. Egghe, R. Rousseau: Aging, obsolescence, impact, growth, and utilization: Definitions and relations, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 51(11), 1004–1017 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. J. Chai, P. Hua, R. Rousseau, J. Wan: The adapted pure h-index. In: Proc. WIS 2008: 4th Int. Conf. Webmetrics, Informetr. Scientometr. 9th COLLNET Meeting, Berlin (2008), http://www.collnet.de/Berlin-2008/ChaiWIS2008aph.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  179. P. Batista, M. Campiteli, O. Kinouchi, A. Martinez: Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?, Scientometrics 68(1), 179–189 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. B.H. Jin, L.L. Liang, R. Rousseau, L. Egghe: The R and AR indices: Complementing the h-index, Chin. Sci. Bull. 52(6), 855–863 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. A.W. Harzing: Publish or Perish user's manual, http://www.harzing.com/pophelp/metrics.htm (2016)

  182. R. Brown: A simple method for excluding self-citations from the h-index: The b-index, Online Inf. Rev. 33(6), 1129–1136 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. R. Costas, T.N. van Leeuwen, A.F.J. van Raan: Is scientific literature subject to a sell by date? A general methodology to analyze the durability of scientific documents, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61(2), 329–339 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  184. K. Järvelin, O. Persson: The DCI-index: Discounted cumulated impact based on research evaluation, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(9), 1433–1440 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. R. Rousseau, F.Y. Ye: A proposal for a dynamic h-type index, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(11), 1853–1855 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  186. R.S.J. Tol: Of the H-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists, Scientometrics 80(2), 317–324 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. L. Egghe: Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(10), 1608–1616 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. L. Egghe: Theory and practise of the g-index, Scientometrics 69(1), 131–152 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. N.J. van Eck, L. Waltman: Generalizing the g- and h-indices, J. Informetr. 2(4), 263–271 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. C.W. Miller: Superiority of the h-index over the impact factor for physics, arXiv:physics/0608183 [physics.soc-ph] (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  191. L. Liang: H-index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications, Scientometrics 69(1), 153–159 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  192. A. Sidiropoulos, D. Katsaros, Y. Manolopoulos: Generalized hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks, Scientometrics 72(2), 253–280 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. F. Radicchi, S. Fortunato, C. Castellano: Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105(45), 17268–17272 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. M. Schreiber: A modification of the h-index: The H(m)-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts, arXiv:0805.2000 [Physics.Soc-Ph] (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  195. M. Sanderson: Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(7), 1184–1190 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. L. Egghe, R. Rousseau: An h-index weighted by citation impact, Inf. Process. Manag. 44(2), 770–780 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. D.J.D. Price: Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology and non-science. In: Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, ed. by C.E. Nelson, D.K. Pollack (Heath Lexington, Lexington 1970) pp. 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  198. J. Wan, P. Hua, R. Rousseau: The pure h-index: Calculating an author's h- index by taking co-authors into account, COLLNET J. Scientometr. Inf. Manag. 1(2), 1–5 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  199. F.J. Cabrerizo, S. Alonso, E. Herrera-Viedmac, F. Herrera: Q2-index: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the hirsch core, J. Informetr. 4(1), 23–28 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  200. R.S.J. Tol: A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland, J. Informetr. 2(2), 149–155 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  201. F. Ruane, R. Tol: Rational (successive) h-indices: An application to economics in the Republic of Ireland, Scientometrics 75(2), 395–405 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  202. Q. Wu: The w-index: A significant improvement of the h-index, arXiv:0805.4650v1 [Physics.Soc-Ph] (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  203. P. Vinkler: The \(\pi\)-index: A new indicator for assessing scientific impact, J. Inf. Sci. 35(5), 602–612 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Researcher Support, The Royal Library, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Lorna Wildgaard

Authors
  1. Lorna Wildgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorna Wildgaard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ECOOM and Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Wolfgang Glänzel

  2. Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Henk F. Moed

  3. Competence Center Policy – Industry – Innovation, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Ulrich Schmoch

  4. Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK

    Mike Thelwall

1 Supplementary Material to Book Chapter

Appendix

Appendix

Table 14.B4 References to indicators (Tables 14.1–14.3)
Full size table
Table 14.B4 (continued)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wildgaard, L. (2019). An Overview of Author-Level Indicators of Research Performance. In: Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., Thelwall, M. (eds) Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Handbooks. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation