Abstract
A quantitative modification to keep the number of published papers invariant under multiple authorship is suggested. In those cases, fractional allocations are attributed to each co-author with a summation equal to one. These allocations are tailored on the basis of each author contribution. It is denoted “Tailor Based Allocations (TBA)” for multiple authorship. Several protocols to TBA are suggested. The choice of a specific TBA may vary from one discipline to another. In addition, TBA is applied to the number of citations of a multiple author paper to have also this number conserved. Each author gets only a specific fraction of the total number of citations according to its fractional paper allocation. The equivalent of the h-index obtained by using TBA is denoted the gh-index. It yields values which differ drastically from those given by the h-index. The gh-index departs also from \(\bar{h}\) recently proposed by Hirsh to account for multiple authorship. Contrary to the h-index, the gh-index is a function of the total number of citations of each paper. A highly cited paper allows a better allocation for all co-authors while a less cited paper contributes essentially to one or two of the co-authors. The scheme produces a substantial redistribution of the ranking of scientists in terms of quantitative records. A few illustrations are provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics 3, 273–289.
Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., & Martinez, A. S. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics 68, 179–189.
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 American Society for Information Science and Technology 59, 830–837.
Chai, J. C., Hua, P. H., Rousseau, R., Wan, J. K. (2008). Real and rational variants of the h-index and the g-index. In H. Kretschmer & F. Havemann (Eds.), Proceedings of the WIS 2008, Berlin, pp. 64–71.
Cole J. R., & Cole S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cronin, B. (1981). The need of a theory of citing. Journal of Documentation, 37, 16–24.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 69, 131–152.
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, 1608–1616.
Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2008). An h-index weighted by citation impact. Information Processiong and Management 44, 770–780.
Egghe, L, Rousseau, R., & Van Hooydonk, G. (2000). Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 145–157.
Guns, R., & Rousseau, R. (2009). Real and rational variants of the h-index and the g-index. Journal of Informetrics 3, 64–71.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individuals scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 102, 16569–16572.
Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics 85 , 741–754.
Hu, X., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2010). In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science 36(1), 73–85.
Jin, B. H., Liang, L. M., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin 52, 855–863.
Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations.Journal of Informetrics 4, 644–646.
Leydesdorff, L., & Shin, J. C. (2010). How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines. arXiv:1010.2465v1.
Oppenheim, C. (1998). Fractional counting of multiauthored publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(5), 482.
Price D. S. (1981). Multiple authorship. Science, 212(4498), 987.
Schreiber, M. (2009). A case study of the modified Hirsch index h m accounting for multiple co-authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60, 1274–1282.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2008). Generalizing the h- and g-indices. Journal of Informetrics 2, 263–271.
Van Hooydonk, G. (1997). Fractional counting of multi-authored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48(10), 944–945.
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.
Vinkler, P. (1987). A quasi-quantitative citation model. Scientometrics, 12, 47–72.
Zuckerman, H. (1968). Patterns of name-ordering among authors of scientific papers: A study of social symbolism and its ambiguity. American Journal of Sociology 74, 276–291.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Galam, S. Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index. Scientometrics 89, 365–379 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0447-1
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0447-1