Scientometrics

, Volume 80, Issue 2, pp 325–342 | Cite as

An axiomatic characterization of the ranking based on the h-index and some other bibliometric rankings of authors

Article

Abstract

In the last few years, many new bibliometric rankings or indices have been proposed for comparing the output of scientific researchers. We propose a formal framework in which rankings can be axiomatically characterized. We then present a characterization of some popular rankings. We argue that such analyses can help the user of a ranking to choose one that is adequate in the context where she/he is working.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chapron, G, Huste, A. (2006), Open, fair, and free journal ranking for researchers. Bioscience, 56: 558–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Egghe, L. (2006), Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69: 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eto, H. (2003), Interdisciplinary information input and output of a nano-technology project. Scientometrics, 58: 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Glänzel, W. (2006), On the h-index: A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact. Scientometrics, 67(2): 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hirsch, J. E. (2005), An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102: 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., Manolopoulos, Y. (2007), Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72(2): 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations