Skip to main content
Log in

Normalizing the g-index

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006a). An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2, 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006b). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2009). An econometric property of the g-index. Information Processing and Management, 45(4), 484–489.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2013). Comparative study of four impact measures and qualitative conclusions. Information Processing and Management, 49(4), 865–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2014). A good normalized impact and concentration measure. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(10), 2152–2154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2008). A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific performance. Scientometrics, 76(2), 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. W., Olkin, I., & Arnold, B. C. (2009). Inequalities: Theory of majorization and its applications (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2013). Do we need the g-index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(11), 2396–2399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol, R. S. J. (2008). A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woeginger, G. J. (2008). An axiomatic analysis of Egghe’s g-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 364–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucio Bertoli-Barsotti.

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 1x 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

$$ L_{{X^{*} }} \left( t \right) = Q_{i - 1} - q_{i - 1} i + q_{i - 1} \left( {T + 1} \right)t, $$

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−1F 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) \( \frac{i}{T + 1} \le t \le F_{i} \).

  1. (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).

  2. (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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bertoli-Barsotti, L. Normalizing the g-index. Scientometrics 106, 645–655 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1794-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1794-0

Keywords

Navigation