Suitability of h- and x-indices for evaluating authors’ individual research achievements in a given short period of years

Abstract

Background: The h-index of a researcher refers to the maximum number h of his/her publications that has at least h citations via the concept of the square area. The x-index is determined by the maximum area of a rectangle under the curve to interpret authors’ individual research achievements (IRAs). However, the properties of both metrics have not been compared and discussed before. This study aimed to investigate whether both metrics of h- and x-index are suitable for evaluating IRAs in a short period of years. Methods: By searching the PubMed database (Pubmed.com), we used the keyword “ PLoS One ” (journal) and downloaded 50,000 articles published in 2015 and 2016. A total of 146,346 citations were listed in PubMed Central and 27,035 authors(with h-index ≥1) were divided into 3 parts. Correlation coefficients among metrics (ie, AIF, h, g, Ag, and x-index) were examined. The bootstrapping method used for estimating 95% confidence intervals was applied to compare differences in metrics among author groups. The most cited authors and topic burst were visualized by social network analysis. The most prominent countries/areas were highlighted by the x-index and displayed via choropleth maps. Results: Results demonstrated that, first, the h-index had the least relation to other metrics and failed to differentiate authors’ IRAs among groups, particularly in a short time period. Second, the top 3 highest x-index for countries were the United States, China, and the UK but with the productivity-oriented feature. Third, the most cited medical subject headings (ie, MeSH terms) were genome, metabolome, and microbiology, and the most cited author was Lori Newman (whose x-index = 13.52, and h = 2) from Switzerland with the article (PMID = 26646541) cited 291 times. The need for the x-index combined with a visual map for displaying authors’ IRAs was verified and recommended. Conclusions: We verified that the h-index failed to differentiate authors’ IRAs among author groups in a short time period. The x-index combined with the Kano map is recommended in research for a better understanding of the authors’ IRAs in other journals or disciplines, not just limited to the journal of PloS One as we did in this study.

A leading author of meta-analysis does not have a dominant contribution to research based on the CJAL score: Bibliometric analysis

“…Several bibliographical studies used visualization to explore only 1 aspect of research (e.g., Citation analysis; Theme exploration; Topic analysis; Reference citations; Research; Research achievement; Author collaboration, and; Trend and hot spot in terms and articles [ 22 , 23 , 38 , 45 , 57 , 58 ] ). It was not found that such research was conducted to condense information in a concise 4-quadrant radar plot (e.g., Figs.…”

Rehabilitation Is the Main Topic in Virtual and Augmented Reality and Physical Activity Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

“…Lotka’s law was applied to identify the most productive co-authors [ 73 ]. The Hirsch index (h-index) was used to identify the most prominent co-authors, with the most productive being those with the highest number of citations among the analysed papers [ 74 , 75 ]. The most relevant contributions were considered to be those with h or the highest number of citations, based on the h-index [ 75 , 76 ].…”

The 100 most cited articles have fewer citations than other bibliometric articles: A pairwise comparison using a temporal bubble graph

“…The bootstrapping method [15,31,32] was performed to verify the difference in mean citations for each theme between the groups. A total of 1000 medians were retrieved from random samples of 100 repetitions of median values for each theme in each group.…”