Abstract
In academia, the research performance of a faculty is evaluated based on the number of publications, the number of citations, and the impact of publication where one publishes. Most of the time h-index is widely used during the hiring process or the faculty performance evaluation. However, there is a significant impact of varying h-index among different databases on the author’s research evaluation. Here we analyze the publication records of 385 authors from Monash University (Australia) to investigate (i) the impact of different databases like Scopus and Web of Science on the ranking of authors within a discipline, and (ii) to complement the h-index, named \(h_{\text {c}}\), by adding the weight of the highest cited paper to the h-index of the authors. The results show the positive impact of \(h_{\text {c}}\) on the lower-ranked authors (\(h \le 10\)) in every discipline.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study along with python codes are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Viel, F. (2010). A robust benchmark for the h-and g-indexes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 1275–1280.
Adriaanse, L. S., & Rensleigh, C. (2013). Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 721–744.
Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9, 18–26.
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2010). hg-Index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h-and g-indices. Scientometrics, 82, 391–400.
Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, 1–8.
Ball, P. (2005). Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature, 436, 900.
Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74, 257–271.
Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 26–34.
Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., & Kinouchi, O. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68, 179–189.
Bornmann, L. (2017). Measuring impact in research evaluations: A thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements. Higher Education, 73, 775–787.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics, 65, 391–392.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2009). The state of h index research: Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Reports, 10, 2–6.
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.
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). A Hirsch-type index for journals. The Scientist, 19, 8.
Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69, 169–173.
Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 193–203.
Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77, 267–288.
Cronin, B., Snyder, H., & Atkins, H. (1997). Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: A study of sociology. Journal of Documentation, 53(3), 263–273.
Ding, J., Liu, C., & Kandonga, G. A. (2020). Exploring the limitations of the h-index and h-type indexes in measuring the research performance of authors. Scientometrics, 122, 1303–1322.
Ding, Y., Yan, E., Frazho, A., & Caverlee, J. (2009). PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 2229–2243.
Dumé, B. (2005). How high is your h-index? Physics World, 18, 7.
Dunaiski, M., Geldenhuys, J., & Visser, W. (2018). Author ranking evaluation at scale. Journal of Informetrics, 12, 679–702.
Dunaiski, M., Geldenhuys, J., & Visser, W. (2019). Globalised vs averaged: Bias and ranking performance on the author level. Journal of Informetrics, 13, 299–313.
Dunaiski, M., Visser, W., & Geldenhuys, J. (2016). Evaluating paper and author ranking algorithms using impact and contribution awards. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 392–407.
Egghe, L. (2006a). An improvement of the h-index: The g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2, 8–9.
Egghe, L. (2006b). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152.
Egghe, L. (2008). The influence of transformations on the h-index and the g-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1304–1312.
Egghe, L. (2010). The Hirsch index and related impact measures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 65–114.
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22, 338–342.
Garfield, E. (2006). Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35, 1123–1127.
Glänzel, W. (2006). On the h-index—A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact. Scientometrics, 67, 315–321.
Gracza, T., & Somoskövi, I. (2007). Impact factor and/or Hirsch index? Orvosi Hetilap, 148, 849–852.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 102, 16569–16572.
Jin, B., Liang, L., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The r-and ar-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52, 855–863.
Maabreh, M., & Alsmadi, I. M. (2012). A survey of impact and citation indices: Limitations and issues. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 40, 35–54.
Martin, B. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36, 343–362.
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12, 1160–1177.
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2105–2125.
Molinari, J. F., & Molinari, A. (2008). A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics, 75, 163–174.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228.
Neuhaus, C., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Data sources for performing citation analysis: An overview. Journal of Documentation, 64(2), 193–210.
Nykl, M., Campr, M., & Ježek, K. (2015). Author ranking based on personalized PageRank. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 777–799.
Pérez-Gutiérrez, M., & Cobo-Corrales, C. (2022). Surfing scientific output indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus (1967–2017). Movimento, 26, e26015.
Schreiber, M. (2008a). An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the a-index, and the r-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1513–1522.
Schreiber, M. (2008b). The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe’s g index. Scientometrics, 76, 187–200.
Schreiber, M. (2010). Twenty Hirsch index variants and other indicators giving more or less preference to highly cited papers. Annalen der Physik, 522, 536–554.
Tol, R. S. (2008). A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 149–155.
Torres-Salinas, D., Lopez-Cózar, E., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2009). Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus. Scientometrics, 80, 761–774.
Usman, M., Mustafa, G., & Afzal, M. T. (2020). Ranking of author assessment parameters using logistic regression. Scientometrics, 126, 1–19.
Vieira, E., & Gomes, J. (2009). A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81, 587–600.
Vinkler, P. (2007). Eminence of scientists in the light of the h-index and other scientometric indicators. Journal of Information Science, 33, 481–491.
Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 365–391.
Zhang, C. T. (2009a). The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE, 4, e5429.
Zhang, C. T. (2009b). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports, 10, 416–417.
Zhang, C. T. (2013). The h\(^{\prime }\)-index, effectively improving the h-index based on the citation distribution. PLoS ONE, 8, e59912.
Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123, 321–335.
Acknowledgements
Both Scopus and WoS data is downloaded from the Northwestern University, USA. We thank Dr. Hirdesh K. Pharasi for his suggestions. We are thankful to both the reviewers and editor for their invaluable suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khurana, P., Sharma, K. Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors. Scientometrics 127, 4483–4498 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04464-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04464-w