Scientometrics

, Volume 115, Issue 2, pp 1131–1137 | Cite as

Rejoinder to “Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes”

Article

Abstract

In a Letter to the Editor, the authors of this paper show, to highlight the practical risks of using the h-index, how academics’ data and bibliometric information can be misrepresented. In this rejoinder, we examine the comments offered in letters by Judit Bar-Ilan, Rodrigo Costas and Thomas Franssen, as well as Lutz Bornmann and Loet Leydesdorff, to offer additional insight and critique. This form of open debate about a topic that may potentially affect many academics is an excellent initiative by Scientometrics, and widens the possibilities of holding journal-based discussion forums rather than in informal journal clubs or blogs. We continue to believe that the h-index has some value by offering a crude measure of productivity, but not when used alone. How the accuracy of different h-indexes is calculated, and how h-index-based productivity is associated with academic quality are issues that merit greater research. Finally, we confirm that the Web of Science database search function for compound family names gives erroneous output which can disadvantage those academics with such family names.

Keywords

Author-based metrics Creditability Databases Journal clubs Google Scholar Scopus Web of Science 

Abbreviations

GS

Google Scholar

h-index

Hirsch index

WoS

Web of Science

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11192_2018_2684_MOESM1_ESM.doc (966 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 965 kb)

References

  1. Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Gónzalez-Alcaide, G., Alonso-Arroyo, A., & Valderrama-Zurián, J. C. (2008). The implications of name variations among Spanish cardiologists. Revista Espanola de Cardiologia, 61(2), 218–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1885-5857(08)60103-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avila-Poveda, O. H. (2014). Technical report: The trend of author compound names and its implications for authorship identity identification. Scientometrics, 101, 833–846.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1359-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar-Ilan, J. (2018). Comments on the Letter to the Editor on “Multiple versions of the h-index: Cautionary use for formal academic purposes” by Jaime A. Teixera da Silva and Judit Dobránszki. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2681-2.Google Scholar
  4. Black, B. (2003). Indexing the names of authors from Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries. Science Editor, 26(4), 118–121.Google Scholar
  5. Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2018). Count highly-cited papers instead of papers with h citations: Use normalized citation counts and compare “like with like”! Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2682-1.Google Scholar
  6. Costas, R., & Franssen, T. (2018). Reflections around ‘the cautionary use’ of the h-index: Response to Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2683-0.Google Scholar
  7. Dorsch, I. (2017). Relative visibility of authors’ publications in different information services. Scientometrics, 112, 917–925.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2416-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of Pub Med, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.  https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kawashima, H., & Tomizawa, H. (2015). Accuracy evaluation of Scopus Author ID based on the largest funding database in Japan. Scientometrics, 103, 1061–1071.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1580-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ruiz-Pérez, R., Delgado López-Cózar, D., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2002). Spanish personal name variations in national and international biomedical databases: Implications for information retrieval and bibliometric studies. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90(4), 411–430.Google Scholar
  11. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013). Snub publishing: Theory. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special Issue 1), 35–37.Google Scholar
  12. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2014). Snub publishing: Evidence from the Anthurium literature. Publishing Research Quarterly, 30(1), 166–178.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-014-9355-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017). The Journal Impact Factor (JIF): Science publishing’s miscalculating metric. Academic Questions, 30(4), 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2018). Multiple versions of the h-index: Cautionary use for formal academic purposes. Scientometrics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2680-3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IkenobeJapan
  2. 2.Research Institute of Nyíregyháza, IAREFUniversity of DebrecenNyíregyházaHungary

Personalised recommendations