Influence of individual researchers’ visibility on institutional impact: an example of Prathap’s approach to successive h-indices
- 177 Downloads
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.
KeywordsBrain Research Cuban Individual Researcher Institutional Evaluation Hirsch Index
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Egghe, L. (2006A), An improvement of the H-index: the G-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2 : 8–9.Google Scholar
- Egghe, L. (2007), Modelling successive h-indices. Preprint.Google Scholar
- Glänzel, W. (2006), On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index. Science Focus (in Chinese), 1: 10–11.Google Scholar
- Jin, B. (2006), H-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus (in Chinese), 1: 8–9.Google Scholar
- Jin, B. (2007), The AR-index complementing the h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 3: 6.Google Scholar
- 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
- Prathap, G. (2006), Hirsch-type indices for ranking institutions’ scientific research output. Current Science, 91: 1439.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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