Abstract
Ever since the h-index was proposed by Hirsch (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 102(46): 16569–16572, 2005), it has aroused widespread interest in academia. Axiomatic and mathematical interpretations of the h-index and its variants have been widely discussed. This study proposes the following basic domination relation: Assume that scholars X and Y have the same number of papers and these are sorted by the number of citations. If for all i, scholar Y’s ith paper is cited no less than scholar X’s ith paper, then scholar Y cannot be considered inferior to scholar X. We propose that any index which violates the basic domination relation is defective. The a-index, m-index, e-index and q 2-index are demonstrated to violate this relation, implying these four indices should be used with caution.
References
Abbott, A., Cyranoski, D., Jones, N., Maher, B., Schiermeier, Q., & Van Noorden, R. (2010). Do metrics matter? Nature, 465(7300), 860–863.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381–1385.
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.
Bouyssou, D., & Marchant, T. (2014). An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 449–477.
Cabrerizo, F. J., Alonso, S., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2010). q 2-Index: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 23–28.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.
Egghe, L. (2010). The Hirsch index and related impact measures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 65–114.
Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Uses and abuses. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
Glänzel, W. (2010). The role of the h-index and the characteristic scores and scales in testing the tail properties of scientometric distributions. Scientometrics, 83(3), 697–709.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102(46), 16569–16572.
Jin, B., Liang, L., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The R-and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855–863.
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.
Marchant, T. (2009). An axiomatic characterization of the ranking based on the h-index and some other bibliometric rankings of authors. Scientometrics, 80(2), 325–342.
Quesada, A. (2010). More axiomatics for the Hirsch index. Scientometrics, 82(2), 413–418.
Rousseau, R. (2006). New developments related to the Hirsch index. Science Focus, 1(4), 23–25. (in Chinese).
Rousseau, R. (2008). Woeginger’s axiomatisation of the h-index and its relation to the g-index, the h(2)-index and the R2-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 335–340.
Schubert, A. (2007). Successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 70(1), 201–205.
Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: A profusion of measures. Nature, 465(7300), 864–866.
Woeginger, G. J. (2008a). An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch-index. Mathematical Social Sciences, 56(2), 224–232.
Woeginger, G. J. (2008b). An axiomatic analysis of Egghe’s g-index. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 364–368.
Wu, Q. (2010). The w-index: A measure to assess scientific impact by focusing on widely cited papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 609–614.
Zhang, C. T. (2009). The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5429.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71273250).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, Q., Zhang, P. Some indices violating the basic domination relation. Scientometrics 113, 495–500 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2475-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2475-y