Evaluation of h-index and its citation intensity based variants in the field of mathematics
Assessing and evaluating the academic impact and its results produced by researchers is necessary to promote the academic progress. A diverse and varied set of parameters have been proposed by the scientific community to find the most influential researchers, including citation count, the total number of publications, hybrid approaches, h-index, extensions and variants of h-index. Current state-of-the-art depicts that there is no standard benchmark available to determine the optimum parameter to find the most influential author of a specific domain. Furthermore, it has been observed that such indices are assessed on a small dataset and ingenious scenarios. The small dataset can never truly help to analyze the nature of these indices and it is very difficult to determine the significance and influence of every index over the others. Hence, it’s necessary to assess them on a large dataset. The following research would help in scrutinizing the h-index along with its citation intensity based variants to rank the authors by using a large dataset of Mathematics domain that consist of 57,533 authors and 62,033 total numbers of publications. These indices make use of the total published papers, citation count, along with the h-index and the five of its citation intensity based variants. The esteemed awards that are won nationally and internationally in the field of mathematics serve as a benchmark. This study would deal and help to recognize the most influential authors by concluding the results gained after evaluation of these indices. For this purpose, firstly, we calculated the correlation among different indices. The strong correlation was found between the h-index and its five citation intensity based variants. The occurrence of the award winners is examined according to the rank lists. H-index brought around 30.88% awardees in the top 10% of the ranked list. In a bird’s eye view, no index could succeed in elevating a 50% of award winners in the top-ranking. Our benchmark dataset is composed of 68 awardees. In the ranking lists, the maximum number of awardees belongs to American Mathematics Society (AMS) which are 29.
KeywordsAuthors ranking Citation count Citation intensity H-index H-index variants Mathematics Subject Classification
Funding was provided by Capital University of Science and Technology.
- Adler, R., Ewing, J., & Taylor, P. (2009). Citation statistics: A report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS). Statistical Science, 24(1), 1–14.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Balog, K., Azzopardi, L., & De Rijke, M. (2006, August). Formal models for expert finding in enterprise corpora. In Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (pp. 43–50). ACM.Google Scholar
- Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009, April). Google Scholar’s ranking algorithm: The impact of citation counts (an empirical study). In Third international conference on research challenges in information science, 2009. RCIS 2009 (pp. 439–446). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Bogers, T., & Van den Bosch, A. (2008, October). Recommending scientific articles using CiteULike. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on recommender systems (pp. 287–290). ACM.Google Scholar
- Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830–837.Google Scholar
- Bosman, J., Mourik, I. V., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E., &Verhoeff, H. (2006). Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Report, Utrecht University Library.Google Scholar
- Cameron, D. H. L., Aleman-Meza, B., Decker, S., &Arpinar, I. B. (2007). SEMEF: A taxonomy-based discovery of experts, expertise and collaboration networks. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
- Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2009). Comparing variables of ordinal or dichotomous scales: Spearman rank‐order, point‐biserial, and biserial correlations. In Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: A step-by-step approach (pp. 122–154). Wiley.Google Scholar
- Egghe, L. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: The g-index. ISSI.Google Scholar
- Harzing, A. W. (2010). Citation analysis across disciplines: The impact of different data sources and citation metrics. https://harzing.com/publications/white-papers/citation-analysis-across-disciplines. Accessed 13 Jan 2019.
- James, D. W. (2014). Completing Hirsch’s h-index measuring scholarly impact. In Scholardox E4.Google Scholar
- Jin, B. (2006). H-index: An evaluation indicator proposed by the scientist. Science Focus, 1(1), 8–9.Google Scholar
- Katsaros, D., Akritidis, L., & Bozanis, P. (2009). The f index: Quantifying the impact of coterminal citations on scientists’ ranking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(5), 1051–1056.Google Scholar
- Liang, R., & Jiang, X. (2016, February).Scientific ranking over heterogeneous academic hypernetwork. In AAAI (pp. 20–26).Google Scholar
- Liu, Y., & Rousseau, R. (2007). Hirsch-type indices and library management: The case of Tongji University Library. In 11th International conference of the International Society for Scientrometrics and Informetrics, June 25–27, 2007, Madrid, Spain (pp. 514–522).Google Scholar
- Rousseau, R. (2006). New developments related to the Hirsch index. Preprint, http://eprints.rclis.org/7616/. Accessed 13 Jan 2019.
- Wells, J. D. (2014). Scholardox E4 (2014) Completing Hirsch’s h-index measuring scholarly impact By James D. Wells (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) April 13, 2014.Google Scholar
- Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S. H., Jones, R., et al. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Technical report.Google Scholar
- Wu, Q. (2010). The w-index: A measure to assess scientific impact by focusing on widely cited papers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 609–614.Google Scholar
- Yan, E., Ding, Y., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2011). P-Rank: An indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(3), 467–477.Google Scholar