Citation data as a proxy for quality or scientific influence are at best PAC (probably approximately correct)

Journal of Data and Information Science

2019

Self Cite

Purpose To show for which publication-citation arrays h-type indices are equal and to reconsider rational h-type indices. Results for these research questions fill some gaps in existing basic knowledge about h-type indices. Design/methodology/approach The results and introduction of new indicators are based on well-known definitions. Findings The research purpose has been reached: answers to the first questions are obtained and new indicators are defined. Research limitations h-type indices do not meet the Bouyssou-Marchant independence requirement. Practical implications On the one hand, more insight has been obtained for well-known indices such as the h- and the g-index and on the other hand, simple extensions of existing indicators have been added to the bibliometric toolbox. Relative rational h-type indices are more useful for individuals than the existing absolute ones. Originality/value Answers to basic questions such as “when are the values of two h-type indices equal” are provided. A new rational h-index is introduced.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Equalities between h-type Indices and Definitions of Rational h-type Indicators

Egghe

Fassin

Journal of Data and Information Science

2019

Self Cite

“…All h-and g-type indices suffer from logically fatal flaws, as shown by Bouyssou & Marchant (2011) and Waltman & van Eck (2012). Hence they can in practice only be considered as heuristics (being probably approximately correct or PAC, as stated in (Rousseau, 2016)). Yet, considered from a slightly different angle, the algorithm used in their calculations can be shown to lead to mathematically interesting results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures of linear type lead to a characterization of Zipf functions

Egghe

2019

Scientometrics

Self Cite

“…Finally, we recognize that all h-type indicators do not always behave in a logical way (Bouyssou and Marchant 2011;Waltman and van Eck 2012). Like many other indicators the h (3) indicator is only PAC (Probably Approximately Correct) (Rousseau 2016). Of course, as for the JIF, journals' h (3) values should not be used to evaluate individual researchers (Zhang et al 2017).…”

Section: Advantage Of the H (3) -Indexmentioning

confidence: 96%

The h(³) – index of academic journals

Fassin

2019

MJLIS

Self Cite

The objective of this paper is to show that the already existing h (³) indicator, designed after the hindex and Kosmulski's h (²)-index, has some advantages with respect to the classical h-or h(²)-indices, when it comes to academic journal evaluation. The h (³)-index for journals is defined as the largest natural number h3 such that the first h3 publications each received at least (h3) 3 citations. Because of its tough requirement it is difficult to have a high h (3)-index. Consequently, this index is more selective than the classic h and h (2)-indexes. It enjoys a greater stability and is simple to determine as it necessitates only a small number of most-cited articles of a journal and varies only every 2 to 5 years. We admit though that like many other indicators the h (3) indicator is only PAC (Probably Approximately Correct). Yet, it is proposed as a simple and valuable alternative to the more complex and contested Journal Impact Factor.