Scientometrics

, Volume 108, Issue 2, pp 489–504 | Cite as

Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index

Article

Abstract

A researcher collaborating with many groups will normally have more papers (and thus higher citations and h-index) than a researcher spending all his/her time working alone or in a small group. While analyzing an author’s research merit, it is therefore not enough to consider only the collective impact of the published papers, it is also necessary to quantify his/her share in the impact. For this quantification, here I propose the I-index which is defined as an author’s percentage share in the total citations that his/her papers have attracted. It is argued that this I-index does not directly depend on the most of the subjective issues like an author’s influence, affiliation, seniority or career break. A simple application of the Central Limit Theorem shows that, the scheme of equidistribution of credit among the coauthors of a paper will give us the most probable value of the I-index (with an associated small standard deviation which decreases with increasing h-index). I show that the total citations (\(N_{\text {c}}\)), the h-index and the I-index are three independent parameters (within their bounds), and together they give a comprehensive idea of an author’s overall research performance.

Keywords

Coauthors’ contributions Independent parameters Central Limit Theorem 

References

  1. Ausloos, M. (2015). Assessing the true role of coauthors in the h-index measure of an author scientific impact. Physica A, 422, 136.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., & Martinez, A. S. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya, R., & Waymire, E. C. (2000). A basic course in probability theory. USA: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Biswal, A. K. (2013). An absolute index (Ab-index) to measure a researchers useful contributions and productivity. PLoS One, 8, e84334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Egghe, L. (2008). Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galam, S. (2011). Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: A fractional gh-index. Scientometrics, 89, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individuals scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 46, 16569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individuals scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85, 741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C., Demleitner, M., Murray, S. S., et al. (2005). The bibliometric properties of article readership information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2012). Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pal, A., & Ruj, S. (2015). CITEX: A new citation index to measure the relative importance of authors and papers in scientific publications. In 2015 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC) (pp. 1256–1261).Google Scholar
  12. Pepe, A., & Kurtz, M. J. (2012). A measure of total research impact independent of time and discipline. PLoS One, 7, e46428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schreiber, M. (2009). A case study of the modified Hirsch index \(h_m\) accounting for multiple coauthors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEA, INAC/SPSMSGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations