Scientometrics

, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 507–516 | Cite as

Influence of individual researchers’ visibility on institutional impact: an example of Prathap’s approach to successive h-indices

Article

Abstract

This study applies Prathap’s approach to successive h-indices in order to measure the influence of researcher staff on institutional impact. The twelve most productive Cuban institutions related to the study of the human brain are studied. The Hirsch index was used to measure the impact of the institutional scientific output, using the g-index and R-index as complementary indicators. Prathap’s approach to successive h-indices, based on the author-institution hierarchy, is used to determine the institutional impact through the performance of the researcher staff. The combination of different Hirsch-type indices for institutional evaluation is illustrated.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arencibia-Jorge, R., Barrios-Almaguer, I., Fernandez-Hernandez, S., Carvajal-Espino, R. (2008), Applying successive H indices in the institutional evaluation: a case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Egghe, L. (2006A), An improvement of the H-index: the G-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2 : 8–9.Google Scholar
  3. Egghe, L. (2006B), Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69: 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Egghe, L. (2007), Modelling successive h-indices. Preprint.Google Scholar
  5. Egghe, L., Rao, I. K. R. (2008), Study of different h-indices for groups of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59: 1276–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glänzel, W. (2006), On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Science Focus (in Chinese), 1: 10–11.Google Scholar
  7. Hirsch, J. E. (2005), An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 102: 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jin, B. (2006), H-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus (in Chinese), 1: 8–9.Google Scholar
  9. Jin, B. (2007), The AR-index complementing the h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 3: 6.Google Scholar
  10. Jin, B., Liang, L., Rousseau, R., Egghe, L. (2007), The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52: 855–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kosmulski, M. (2006), A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2: 4–6.Google Scholar
  12. Prathap, G. (2006), Hirsch-type indices for ranking institutions’ scientific research output. Current Science, 91: 1439.Google Scholar
  13. Rao, I. K. R. (2007), Distributions of Hirsch-index and g-index: an empirical study, In: D. Torres-Salinas, H. F. Moed (Eds), Proceedings of ISSI 2007, Madrid, CSIC, 655–658.Google Scholar
  14. Ruane, F., Tol, R. S. J. (2008), Rational (successive) h-indices: an application to economics in the republic of Ireland. Scientometrics, 75: 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schildt, H. A., Mattsson, J. T. (2006), A dense network sub-grouping algorithm for co-citation analysis and its implementation in the software tool Sitkis. Scientometrics, 67: 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schubert, A. (2007), Successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 70: 201–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2006), Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67: 491–502.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Network of Scientometric Studies for Higher EducationNational Scientific Research CenterHavana CityCuba
  2. 2.KHBO (Association K.U.Leuven)Industrial Sciences and TechnologyOostendeBelgium
  3. 3.K.U.Leuven, Steunpunt O&O IndicatorenDekenstraat 2Belgium

Personalised recommendations