Abstract
Recently, a normalized version of the g-index has been proposed as an impact and concentration measure: the so-called s measure. The main problem with this measure is that—somewhat paradoxically—it may be that s = 1 even in the case in which citations are perfectly evenly spread across articles. We prove that the measure s can and should be improved by a different choice of a normalizing term. This is done by defining the latter as a function of the citation count of the single most cited paper. The new index presented here does not suffer from insensitivity to citation transfers within the g-core.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bartolucci, F. (2012). On a possible decomposition of the h-index (Letter to the Editor). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(10), 2126–2127.
Bartolucci, F. (2015). A comparison between the g-index and the h-index based on concentration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,. doi:10.1002/asi.23440.
Bertoli-Barsotti, L. (2013). Improving a decomposition of the h-index (Letter to the Editor). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1522.
De Visscher, A. (2011). What does the g-index really measure? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2290–2293.
Egghe, L. (2006a). An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2, 8–9.
Egghe, L. (2006b). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152.
Egghe, L. (2009). An econometric property of the g-index. Information Processing and Management, 45(4), 484–489.
Egghe, L. (2012). Remarks on the paper by A. De Visscher, “What does the g-index really measure?”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(10), 2118–2121.
Egghe, L. (2013). Comparative study of four impact measures and qualitative conclusions. Information Processing and Management, 49(4), 865–870.
Egghe, L. (2014). A good normalized impact and concentration measure. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(10), 2152–2154.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102, 16569–16572.
Lando, T., & Bertoli-Barsotti, L. (2014). A new bibliometric index based on the shape of the citation distribution. PLoS One, 9(12), e115962. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115962.
Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2008). A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific performance. Scientometrics, 76(2), 369–390.
Marshall, A. W., Olkin, I., & Arnold, B. C. (2009). Inequalities: Theory of majorization and its applications (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Muirhead, R. F. (1903). Some methods applicable to identities and inequalities of symmetric algebraic functions of n letters. Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, 21, 144–157.
Prathap, G. (2014a). The zynergy-index and the formula for the h-index. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 426–427.
Prathap, G. (2014b). Measures for impact, consistency, and the h- and g-indices. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1076–1078.
Schreiber, M. (2013). Do we need the g-index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(11), 2396–2399.
Tol, R. S. J. (2008). A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 149–155.
Woeginger, G. J. (2008). An axiomatic analysis of Egghe’s g-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 364–368.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: If we add a “fictitious” publications with 0 citations, the concentration increases
Appendix: If we add a “fictitious” publications with 0 citations, the concentration increases
Let X * = (x *1 , x *2 , …, x * T+1 ) be the (T + 1)-dimensional vector (x 1, x 2, …, x T , 0) (i.e. the (vector resulting from the T-dimensional vector X by adding an article with 0 citations). Since, by construction, x *(1) = 0, x *(i) = x (i−1), i = 2, …, T + 1, and Q * i = Q i−1, i = 1, …, T + 1. Then
for every \( t \in \left[ {\frac{i - 1}{T + 1},\frac{i}{T + 1}} \right] \), i = 1, …, T + 1. We can prove that \( L_{{X^{*} }} \left( t \right) \le L_{X} \left( t \right) \), for the generic point t, t ∊ [F i−1, F i ], i = 1, …, T, with a strict inequality at least for some value of t. Since \( F_{i - 1} < \frac{i}{T + 1} < F_{i} \), we can distinguish two cases: (a) \( F_{i - 1} \le t \le \frac{i}{T + 1} \) and (b) \( \frac{i}{T + 1} \le t \le F_{i} \).
-
(a)
In this case, we have to prove the inequality
$$ Q_{i - 1} - q_{i - 1} i + q_{i - 1} \left( {T + 1} \right)t \le Q_{i} - q_{i} i + q_{i} Tt, $$that is equivalent to
$$ x_{{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \left( {t\left( {T + 1} \right) - i} \right) \le x_{(i)} \left( {1 - i + Tt} \right). $$Now, since \( t \le \frac{i}{T + 1} \), we have x (i−1)(t(T + 1) − i) ≤ 0. Besides, since \( \frac{i - 1}{T} \le t \), we have x (i)(1 − i + Tt) ≥ 0. Hence the inequality is proved for case (a).
-
(b)
In this case, we have to prove the inequality
$$ Q_{i} - q_{i} i + q_{i} \left( {T + 1} \right)t \le Q_{i} - q_{i} i + q_{i} Tt, $$that is equivalent to
$$ - i - 1 + Tt + t \le - i + Tt, $$which is clearly fulfilled, with strict inequality for every t in the interval \( \left( {\frac{T}{T + 1},1} \right) \). Hence our thesis is proved.
More generally, on adding a set of k ≥ 1 fictitious publications with 0 citations to a non-null T-dimensional vector, we always increase the concentration and, as k tends to infinity, each well-defined normalized measure of concentration tends to 1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bertoli-Barsotti, L. Normalizing the g-index. Scientometrics 106, 645–655 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1794-0
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1794-0