Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 267, Issue 3, pp 455–458 | Cite as

Comparison of the h index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America

  • Jeyanthi KulasegarahEmail author
  • J. E. Fenton
Miscellaneous

Abstract

The Hirsch (h) index is an original and simple new bibliometric measure incorporating both quantity and quality. In this study, our aim was first to present characteristics of the statistical correlation between the h index and several standard bibliometric indicators and secondly we compared the h index between otolaryngologists from Europe and US. We used the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge to identify citation reports from a random sample of influential editors from six otolaryngology journals: Journal of Laryngology and Otology (n = 21), Clinical Otolaryngology (n = 16), European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology (n = 49), The Laryngoscope (n = 66), Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (n = 15), and Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (n = 15). The following data were gathered: Number of publications (P), total citations received by P(C), total citations received by P without self-citations (Cs), average number of citations per publication (CPP), and Hirsch index (h). Statistical analysis was used to correlate the above data and we also compared the h index of European and North American editors. There were 182 randomly selected editors. We observed a good correlation between the h index and other standard bibliometric indicators. Using the non-parametric Mann–Whitney test, the median P between Europe and US was not statistically significant. However, the median C, CS and h were statistically significant. In conclusion, the h index is a simple yet powerful indicator as it combines productivity and impact. Overall, the US editorial panel have a higher h index.

Keywords

Hirsch index Bibliometric indicators Otolaryngology Web of Knowledge 

Notes

Conflict of interest statement

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Cole S (1989) Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists. Trends Biochem Sci 14(1):9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ball P (2005) Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature 436(7053):900CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(46):16569–16572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cronin B, Meho L (2006) Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57(9):1275–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2007) What do we know about the h index? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 58(9):1381–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Raan AFJ (2006) Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgement for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics 67(3):491–502Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeang KT (2007) Impact factor, H index, peer comparisons, and Retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics? Retrovirology 4:42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glanzel W (2006) On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Sci Focus 1(1):10–11Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelly CD, Jennions M (2006) The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol Evol 21(4):167–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryMidwestern Regional HospitalLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations