Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 109, Issue 3, pp 1511–1524 | Cite as

Identification of conversion factor for completing-h index for the field of mathematics

  • Samreen Ayaz
  • Muhammad Tanvir Afzal
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Citation count Complete-h Experts in mathematics g-index h-index 

References

  1. Afzal, M. T., & Maurer, H. A. (2011). Expertise recommender system for scientific community. Journal of UCS, 17(11), 1529–1549.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, S. G., Bendok, B. R., Rahme, R. J., Dacey, R. G., & Batjer, H. H. (2013). Standardizing the evaluation of scientific and academic performance in neurosurgery—Critical review of the “h” index and its variants. World Neurosurgery, 80(5), e85–e90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bornmann, L. (2014). h-index research in scientometrics: A summary. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 749–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. De Winter, J. C., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547–1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Demaine, J. (2011). Variants and extensions of the h-index. Vienna: European Summer School for Scientoemtrics.Google Scholar
  10. Dienes, K. R. (2015). Completing h. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 385–397.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunaiski, M. P. (2014). Analysing ranking algorithms and publication trends on scholarly citation networks. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
  12. Dunaiski, M., Visser, W., & Geldenhuys, J. (2016). Evaluating paper and author ranking algorithms using impact and contribution awards. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 392–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Egghe, L. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: The g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 8–9.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Galam, S. (2011). Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: A fractional gh-index. Scientometrics, 89(1), 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. García-Pérez, M. A. (2012). An extension of the h index that covers the tail and the top of the citation curve and allows ranking researchers with similar h. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. Harzing, A. W. (2013). A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel Prize winners. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1057–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Jean-François, G., Laetitia, R., & Stefan, D. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Moed, H. F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation (Vol. 9). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Neuhaus, E., Neuhaus, C., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Okhovati, M., Bazrafshan, A., Zare, M., Moradzadeh, M., & Mokhtari, A. M. (2015). Research performance measures and the moderating role of faculty characteristics in epidemiology. Global Journal of Health Science, 8(5), 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schoonbaert, D., & Roelants, G. (1996). Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: Quality assessment tool or comedy of errors? Tropical Medicine & International Health, 1(6), 739–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schreiber, M. (2015). A variant of the h-index to measure recent performance. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2373–2380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walters, W. H. (2009). Google Scholar search performance: Comparative recall and precision. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCapital University of Science & TechnologyIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations