Among the most recent bibliometric indicators for normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of citation behaviour, Kosmulski (J Informetr 5(3):481–485, 2011) proposed the NSP (number of successful paper) index. According to the authors, NSP deserves much attention for its great simplicity and immediate meaning—equivalent to those of the h-index—while it has the disadvantage of being prone to manipulation and not very efficient in terms of statistical significance. In the first part of the paper, we introduce the success-index, aimed at reducing the NSP-index’s limitations, although requiring more computing effort. Next, we present a detailed analysis of the success-index from the point of view of its operational properties and a comparison with the h-index’s ones. Particularly interesting is the examination of the success-index scale of measurement, which is much richer than the h-index’s. This makes success-index much more versatile for different types of analysis—e.g., (cross-field) comparisons of the scientific output of (1) individual researchers, (2) researchers with different seniority, (3) research institutions of different size, (4) scientific journals, etc.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Amin, M., & Mabe, M. (2000). Impact factors: Use and abuse. Perspectives in publishing no 1. Oxford: Elsevier.
Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., & Martinez, A. S. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68(1), 179–189.
Bornmann, L. (2011). Mimicry in science? Scientometrics, 86(1), 173–177.
Bornmann, L., & de Moya Anegon, F. (2011). Some interesting insights from aggregated data published in the World Report SIR 2010. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 486–488.
Davis, P. (2010). Reference List length and citations: A spurious relationship. Retrieved on August 1, 2011, from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/08/18/reference-list-length-and-citations-a-spurious-relationship/
Egghe, L. (2008). The influence of merging on h-type indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 252–262.
Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics: Quantitative methods in library, documentation and information science. Elsevier. Retrieved on November 21, 2011, from http://hdl.handle.net/1942/587
Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2006). An informetric model for the Hirsch-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 121–129.
Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., & Maisano, D. (2007). Management by measurement: Designing key indicators and performance measurements. Berlin: Springer.
Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2010a). Analysis of the Hirsch index’s operational properties. European Journal of Operational Research, 203(2), 494–504.
Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2010b). The Hirsch spectrum: A novel tool for analysing scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics., 4(1), 64–73.
Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2010c). The citation triad: An overview of a scientist’s publication output based on Ferrers diagrams. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 503–511.
Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2011). Bibliometric positioning of scientific manufacturing journals: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 86(2), 463–485.
Garfield, E. (1979a). Citation indexing. Its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. New York: Wiley.
Garfield, E. (1979b). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375.
Garfield, E. (2005). Agony and the ecstasy—the history and meaning of the impact factor. In Proceedings of the international congress on peer review and biomedical publication. Chicago, USA, September 16, 2005.
Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Thijs, B., & Debackere, K. (2011). A priori vs. a posteriori normalisation of citation indicators. The case of journal ranking. Scientometrics, 87(2), 415–424.
Guns, R., & Rousseau, R. (2010). New journal impact indicators take references into account: A comparison. ISSI Newsletter, 6(1), 9–14.
Harzing, A. W., & van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(11), 61–73.
Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., et al. (2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76(1), 169–185.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.
Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharromán, C. (2007). Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73(3), 303–320.
Jackson, M. O., & Rogers, B. W. (2007). Meeting strangers and friends of friends: How random are social networks? American Economic Review, 97(3), 890–915.
JCQAR—Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research. (2010). Citation statistics. Retrieved on August 1, 2011, from http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf
Kochen, M. (1974). Principles of information retrieval (p. 21). Melville: Los Angeles.
Kosmulski, M. (2011). Successful papers: A new idea in evaluation of scientific output. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 481–485.
Krampen, G. (2010). Acceleration of citing behavior after the millennium? Exemplary bibliometric reference analyses for psychology journals. Scientometrics, 83(2), 507–513.
Larivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., & Wallace, M. L. (2008). The fall of uncitedness. In Book of abstracts of the 10th international conference on science and technology indicators (ISSI) (pp. 279–282). Vienna: Austrian Research Centers GmbH.
Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors: An alternative research design with policy implications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2133–2146.
Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Normalization at the field level: Fractional counting of citations. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 644–646.
Leydesdorff, L., & Shin, J. C. (2011). How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1146–1155.
Moed, H. F. (2010a). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 265–277.
Moed, H. F. (2010b). CWTS crown indicator measures citation impact of a research group’s publication oeuvre. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 436–438.
Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing and Management, 12(5), 197–312.
Ravichandra Rao, I. K. (2011). Relations among the number of Citations, references and authors: Revisited. proceedings of COLLNET 2011, 7th international conference on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics (WIS), 20–23 September, 2011, Istanbul, Turkey.
Roberts, F. S. (1979). Measurement theory: With applications to decisionmaking, utility, and the social sciences. Encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications (Vol. 7). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rousseau, R. (2006). New developments related to the Hirsch index. Science Focus, 1(4), 23–25.
Rousseau, R., & Ye, F. Y. (2011). A simple impact measure and its evolution over time. Journal of Library & Information Studies, 9(2).
Small, H. (2004). On the shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a normative theory of citation. Scientometrics, 60(1), 71–79.
Small, H., & Sweeney, E. (1985). Clustering the science citation index using co-citations I. A comparison of methods. Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 391–409.
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2011a). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37–47.
Waltman, L., Yan, E., & van Eck, N. J. (2011b). A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: An application to the field of library and information science. Scientometrics, 89(1), 301–314.
Williamson, J. R. (2009). My h-index turns 40: My midlife crisis of impact. ACS Chemical Biology, 4(5), 311–313.
Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 360–368.
Zitt, M. (2010). Citing-side normalization of journal impact: A robust variant of the Audience Factor. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 392–406.
Zitt, M., & Small, H. (2008). Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1856–1860.
About this article
Cite this article
Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., Maisano, D. et al. The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual’s research output. Scientometrics 92, 621–641 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0570-z
- Successful paper
- Field normalization
- Reference practices
- Operational properties
- Hirsch index