Abstract
In the last few years, many new bibliometric rankings or indices have been proposed for comparing the output of scientific researchers. We propose a formal framework in which rankings can be axiomatically characterized. We then present a characterization of some popular rankings. We argue that such analyses can help the user of a ranking to choose one that is adequate in the context where she/he is working.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chapron, G, Huste, A. (2006), Open, fair, and free journal ranking for researchers. Bioscience, 56: 558–559.
Egghe, L. (2006), Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69: 131–152.
Eto, H. (2003), Interdisciplinary information input and output of a nano-technology project. Scientometrics, 58: 5–33.
Glänzel, W. (2006), On the h-index: A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact. Scientometrics, 67(2): 315–321.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005), An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102: 16569–16572.
Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., Manolopoulos, Y. (2007), Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72(2): 253–280.
van Raan, A. F. J. (2006), Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67: 491–502.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marchant, T. An axiomatic characterization of the ranking based on the h-index and some other bibliometric rankings of authors. Scientometrics 80, 325–342 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2075-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2075-y