, Volume 71, Issue 2, pp 271–282 | Cite as

Usefulness of Hirsch’s h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain

  • Juan Imperial
  • Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro


The applicability of Hirsch’s h index (Hirsch, 2005) for evaluating scientific research in Spain has been investigated. A series of derivative indexes that take into account: i) the overall low scientific production in Spain before the’ 80s; ii) differences among areas due to size (overall number of citations for publications in a given area); and iii) the number of authors, are suggested. Their applicability has been tested for two different areas in the Biological Sciences. The proposed set of indexes accurately summarizes both the success and evolution of scientists’ careers in Spain, and it may be useful in the evaluation of other not well established national scientific research systems.


Impact Factor Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Journal Citation Report Journal Impact Factor Scientific Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amin, M., Mabe, M. (2000), Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing, No. 1. Elsevier Science.
  2. Ball, P. (2005), Index aims for ranking scientists. Nature, 436: 900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batista, P. D., Campitelli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., Martinez, A. S. (2006), Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68(1): 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornmann, L., Daniel, H. D. (2005), Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics, 65: 391–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (2005), A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientist, 19(22): 8.Google Scholar
  6. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (2006), A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1): 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garfield, E. (1994), The ISI impact factor. Current Contents. June 20.
  8. Hecht, F., Hecht, B. K., Sandberg, A. A. (1998), The journal “impact factor”: a misnamed, misleading, misused measure. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, 104: 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jiménez-Contreras, E., de Moya Anegón, F., Delgado López-Cozar, E. (2003), The evolution of research activity in Spain. The impact of the National Commission for the evaluation of research activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32: 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mulligan, A. (2004), Is peer review in crisis? Perspectives in Publishing, No. 2. Elsevier Science.
  12. Rodríguez-Navarro, A. (1994), La reforma de la Universidad española. Boletín de la Institución Libre de Enseñanza, 20: 7–32.Google Scholar
  13. Seglen, P. O. (1997), Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314: 497–507.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Biotecnología y Centro de Investigación en Biotecnología y Genómica de PlantasUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Consejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations