A new family of scientific impact measures: The generalized Kosmulski-indices

Deı̆neko, Vladimir G.; Woeginger, Gerhard J.

doi:10.1007/s11192-009-2130-0

Cited by 28 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, variants of the h‐index such as the g‐index (Egghe, 2006), the h(2)‐index (Kosmulski, 2006), and the w‐index (Wu, 2010) suffer from similar counterintuitive behavior as the h‐index itself 2008) and Deineko and Woeginger (2009). Some indicators that are not related to the h‐index also have an inconsistency problem.…”

Section: Inconsistency Of the H‐indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

The inconsistency of the h‐index

Waltman

Eck

2011

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

272

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis), the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index.We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator.This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.

show abstract

Section: Inconsistency Of the H‐indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

The inconsistency of the h‐index

Waltman

Eck

2011

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

272

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, Deineko andWoeginger (2009), Marchant (2009), and Ravallion and Wagstaff (2011) introduced new families of bibliometric indices, generalizing h-index type indices, using scoring rules, and using influence functions, respectively, in well-defined mathematical frameworks.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Research Measures

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evaluation of scientific research is crucial for both the academic community and society as a whole. Numerous bibliometric indices have been proposed for the ranking of research performance, mainly on an ad hoc basis. We now introduce the novel class of Scientific Research Measures (SRMs) to rank scientists' research performance and provide a rigorous theoretical foundation for these measures. In contrast to many bibliometric indices, SRMs take into account the whole citation curve of the scientist, offer appealing structural properties, allow a finer ranking of scientists, correspond to specific features of different disciplines, research areas and seniorities, and include several bibliometric indices as special cases. Thus SRMs result in more accurate rankings than ad hoc bibliometric indices. We also introduce the further general class of Dual SRMs that reflect the "value" of journals and permit the ranking of research institutions based on theoretically sound criteria, which has been a central theme in the scientific community over recent decades. An empirical application to the citation curves of 173 finance scholars shows that SRMs can be easily calibrated to actual citation curves and generate different authors' rankings than those produced by seven traditional bibliometric indices.

show abstract

“…Among the huge literature (for review, see Alonso, Cabreziro, Herrera-Viedma, and Herrera, 2009, Egghe, 2010a, Norris and Oppenheim, 2010, Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, and Mahalchik, 2012, Schreiber, Malesios, and Psarakis, 2011 on the h-index and its variants (Rousseau, García-Zoritad, and Sanz-Casadod, 2013, have seen this development as a "bubble"), there is already as sizeable literature on the axiomatic analysis of the h-index, most notably Woeginger (2008a,b), Deineko and Woeginger (2009), Quesada (2009Quesada ( , 2010Quesada ( , 2011a, Hwang (2013), Miroiu (2013), and Kongo (2014) 1 . The axiomatic literature on the g-index is less abundant but nevertheless exists: Woeginger (2008c, 2009), and Quesada (2011a.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices

Bouyssou

Marchant

2014

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyzes several well-known bibliometric indices using an axiomatic approach. We concentrate on indices aiming at capturing the global impact of a scientific output and do not investigate indices aiming at capturing an average impact. Hence, the indices that we study are designed to evaluate authors or groups of authors but not journals. The bibliometric indices that are studied include classic ones such as the number of highly cited papers as well as more recent ones such as the h-index and the g-index. We give conditions that characterize these indices, up to the multiplication by a positive constant. We also study the bibliometric rankings that are induced by these indices. Hence, we provide a general framework for the comparison of bibliometric rankings and indices.

show abstract

A new family of scientific impact measures: The generalized Kosmulski-indices

Cited by 28 publications

References 12 publications

The inconsistency of the h‐index

The inconsistency of the h‐index

Scientific Research Measures

An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About