Identification of conversion factor for completing-h index for the field of mathematics
- 552 Downloads
In 2005 Hirsch introduced h-index to evaluate the research output of researchers. This had initiated a debate in the scientific community. Many researchers have evaluated the feasibility of h-index in different scientific domains. Some remained successful while others criticized the effectiveness of h-index in the domains they evaluated. After a decade of this proposal, Dienes critically evaluated the original h-index and have claimed that h index lacks something intrinsic in its definition. Subsequently Dienes introduced a conversion factor based on entire community of one domain to complete the definition of h index. Dienes has not evaluated the conversion factor on actual data; rather they have just proposed mathematical formulations. The aim of our research is to calculate that factor for the field of Mathematics and then after computing completing-h value for all the authors in this community, we have compared our results with h-index (original) and g-index values considering award winners as benchmark. We found out that complete-h contributes positively and shows comparatively better results than h-index and g-index. In top 1000 authors ranked according to these indices 95 award winners were found in complete-h, 76 were found in h-index and 64 were found when authors were ranked according to g-index.
KeywordsCitation count Complete-h Experts in mathematics g-index h-index
- Afzal, M. T., & Maurer, H. A. (2011). Expertise recommender system for scientific community. Journal of UCS, 17(11), 1529–1549.Google Scholar
- Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009). Google Scholar’s ranking algorithm: The impact of citation counts (an empirical study). In Third international conference on research challenges in information science RCIS, IEEE (pp. 439–446).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 American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830–837.CrossRefGoogle 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. A technical report in Utrecht University Library.Google Scholar
- Demaine, J. (2011). Variants and extensions of the h-index. Vienna: European Summer School for Scientoemtrics.Google Scholar
- Dunaiski, M. P. (2014). Analysing ranking algorithms and publication trends on scholarly citation networks. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
- Harzing, A. W. (2010). Citation analysis across disciplines: The Impact of different data sources and citation metrics, www.harzing.com white paper. http://www.harzing.com/data_metrics_comparison.htm. Accessed 19 Jan 2015.
- Harzing, A. W., & Wal, R. V. (2007). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
- Kosmulski, M. (2006). A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(3), 4–6.Google Scholar
- Lopes, G. R., Moro, M. M., Wives, L. K., & De Oliveira, J. P. M. (2010). Collaboration recommendation on academic social networks. In International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (pp. 190–199). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Moed, H. F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation (Vol. 9). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar