Skip to main content

A validation of the individual annual h-index (hIa): application of the hIa to a qualitatively and quantitatively different sample

Abstract

The current study applies the hIa metric of Harzing et al. (Scientometrics 99(3):811–821 2014) to examine average faculty research performance across 5 Colleges in a single university. Average faculty performance for a range of common metrics of research publication such as papers, citations and h-index are presented to allow for a comparison of the degree to which the hIa can account for differences in publication patterns and career lengths in the current sample of faculty (N = 474). Scopus publication data for all faculty members across 5 Colleges was collected and analyzed to evaluate the assertion that the hIa provides a more reliable metric for comparison between academics of different career lengths, and academics researching in different disciplines. Comparison of current results with the results from the original work of Harzing et al. (Scientometrics 99(3):811–821 2014) offer strong support for the usefulness of the hIa in qualitatively and quantitatively different academic environments. Results are discussed in relation to the potential value and appropriate use of the hIa metric.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

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(4), 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonakis, J., & Lalive, R. (2008). Quantifying scholarly impact: IQp versus the Hirsch h. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 956–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin-Edwards, M. (2011). Labour immigration and labour markets in the GCC countries: national patterns and trends. (Vol. 15): Kuwait Programme on Development, Governance and Globalisation in the Gulf States.

  • Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., & Kinouchi, O. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68(1), 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2011). The h index as a research performance indicator. European Science Editing, 37(3), 77–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H.-D. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 346–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsevier, BV. (2014). Subject area categories. 2015, http://help.scopus.com/Content/h_subject_categories.htm.

  • Elsevier, BV. (2015). SCOPUS Content. http://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content.

  • Gagolewski, M., & Mesiar, R. (2012). Aggregating different paper quality measures with a generalized h-index. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 566–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaster, N., & Gaster, M. (2012). A critical assessment of the h-index. BioEssays, 34(10), 830–832.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.W. (2007). Publish or Perish: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.

  • Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W., Alakangas, S., & Adams, D. (2014). hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences. Scientometrics, 99(3), 811–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W., & Mijnhardt, W. (2015). Proof over promise: towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics and Business. Scientometrics, 102(1), 727–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 741–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, G. E., Cleary, M., & Walter, G. (2010). Psychiatry and the Hirsch h-index: The relationship between journal impact factors and accrued citations. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 18(4), 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaur, J., Radicchi, F., & Menczer, F. (2013). Universality of scholarly impact metrics. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 924–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, C., Jawitz, J. W., Hopkins, A., & Goldman, A. (2013). Predicting author h-index using characteristics of the co-author network. Scientometrics, 96(2), 467–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., Macri, F., & Petrovici, D. (2012). Using the h-index to measure the quality of journals in the field of business and management. Information Processing and Management, 48(2), 234–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosey, S., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2012). Transforming traditional university structures for the knowledge economy through multidisciplinary institutes. Cambridge Journal of Economics,. doi:10.1093/cje/bes008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. (2015a). Faculty area normalization – Technical explanation. http://content.qs.com/qsiu/Faculty_Area_Normalization_-_Technical_Explanation.pdf.

  • Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. (2015b). QS Top Universities: Worldwide university rankings, guides and events. Retrieved 23/02/2016, 2016, http://www.topuniversities.com/.

  • Quigley, M. R., Holliday, E. B., Fuller, C. D., Choi, M., & Thomas, C. R, Jr. (2012). Distribution of the h-index in radiation oncology conforms to a variation of power law: implications for assessing academic productivity. Journal of Cancer Education, 27(3), 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J. C. (2014). The work motivation of research scientists and its effect on research performance. R&D Management, 44(4), 355–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J. C., & Hurley, J. (2007). An empirical examination of the relationship between scientists’ work environment and research performance. R&D Management, 37(4), 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J. C., & Tipu, S. (2009). An instrument for the self-appraisal of scientific research performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(7), 632–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2008). A modification of the h-index: The h m-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 211–216.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2013). How relevant is the predictive power of the h-index? A case study of the time-dependent Hirsch index. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 325–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M., Malesios, C. C., & Psarakis, S. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis for the Hirsch index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 347–358.

  • Schubert, A. (2011). A Hirsch-type index of co-author partnership ability. Scientometrics, 91(1), 303–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2007). Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72(2), 253–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svider, P. F., Choudhry, Z. A., Choudhry, O. J., Baredes, S., Liu, J. K., & Eloy, J. A. (2013). The use of the h-index in academic otolaryngology. The Laryngoscope, 123(1), 103–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol, R. S. (2011). Credit where credit’s due: accounting for co-authorship in citation counts. Scientometrics, 89(1), 291–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93(3), 857–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuret, T. (2015). Interfield comparison of academic output by using department level data. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1653–1664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James C. Ryan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ryan, J.C. A validation of the individual annual h-index (hIa): application of the hIa to a qualitatively and quantitatively different sample. Scientometrics 109, 577–590 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1972-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1972-8

Keywords

  • H-index
  • Citations
  • Scopus
  • Research impact
  • Research performance