What do we know about the <i>h</i> index?

Bornmann, Lutz; Daniel, Hans‐Dieter

doi:10.1002/asi.20609

Cited by 524 publications

(351 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

316

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These can also have their cons. A prominent critical review of the h-index can be found in a report by the joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research (Adler, Ewing & Taylor 2008), while the extensive article by Panaretos & Malesios (2009) also critically reviews the h-index, and alternative single metrics (see also Moed &van Leeuwen 1996 andBornmann &Daniel 2007).…”

Section: Important Caveatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations to Australian Astronomy: 5- and 10-Year Benchmarks

Kenyon

Paramasivam

et al. 2012

Publ. – Astron. Soc. Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Important Caveatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citations to Australian Astronomy: 5- and 10-Year Benchmarks

Kenyon

Paramasivam

et al. 2012

Publ. – Astron. Soc. Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the existing literature several citation indicators have been proposed (e.g., Moed et al, 1985;Schubert et al, 1987;Hirsch, 2005;Waltman et al, 2011;Albarrán et al, 2011;Ravallion and Wagstaff, 2011). In particular, drawing from the recent literature on the pros and cons of the hindex (e.g., Jin, 2006;Bornmann and Daniel, 2007;Rousseau, 2008;Marchant, 2009;Burgos, 2010;Bouyssou and Marchant, 2011;Waltman et al, 2011), several h-type indexes have been defined (e.g., Egghe, 2006a,b;Kosmulski, 2006;1 Woeginger, 2008a;Tol, 2009;Glänzel and Schubert, 2010;Schreiber, 2010). 1 For our purposes it is worth drawing a separating line between two different groups of h-type indexes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Certainty equivalent citation: generalized classes of citation indexes

Abatemarco

Dell’Anno

2012

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing from the existing literature on risk and inequality measurement, we implement the notion of "certainty equivalent citation" in order (i) to generalize most of the h-type citation indexes (h-, g-,g, t-, f-, w-index), and (ii) to highlight the centrality of the decision-maker's preferences on distributive aspects (concentration aversion) for the ranking of citation profiles. In order to highlight the sensitivity of citation orderings with respect to concentration aversion, an application to both simulated and real citation profiles is presented.

show abstract

“…Consequently it was rapidly incorporated into e-resources such as the Web of Science and Scopus to measure an author's comparative 'standing' in a particular research community. Likewise, the informetric community quickly adapted the h-index and started investigating its shortcomings (Burrell 2007a;Costas and Bordons 2007) and properties (Bornmann and Daniel 2007;Bornmann et al 2008a;Burrell 2007b;Egghe 2007;Vanclay 2007) as well as developing various modifications and improvements to the indicator, subsumed as h-type or Hirsch-type indicators (Rousseau 2008), such as the g-index (Egghe 2006), h(2)-index (Kosmulski 2006), A-index (Jin 2006 cited by Rousseau 2006), R-index (Jin et al 2007) and the m-index (Bornmann et al 2008b). The developments and applications of these new or variant indicators were quickly followed by studies comparing one or more of them to the h-index (e.g., Bornmann et al 2008b;Burrell 2009;Costas and Bordons 2008;Schreiber 2008) and to existing standard informetric indicators and peer judgment (e.g., Van Raan 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Journal Impact Factors for evaluating scientific performance: use of h-like indicators

Boell

Wilson

2010

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article introduces the Impact Factor squared or IF²-index, an h-like indicator of research performance. This indicator reflects the degree to which large entities such as countries and/or their states participate in top-level research in a field or subfield. The IF²-index uses the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of research publications instead of the number of citations. This concept is applied to other h-type indexes and their results compared to the IF²-index. These JIF-based indexes are then used to assess the overall performance of cancer research in Australia and its states over 8 years from 1999 to 2006. The IF²-index has three advantages when evaluating larger research units: firstly, it provides a stable value that does not change over time, reflecting the degree to which a research unit participated in top-level research in a given year; secondly, it can be calculated closely approximating the publication date of yearly datasets; and finally, it provides an additional dimension when a full article-based citation analysis is not feasible. As the index reflects the degree of participation in top-level research it may favor larger units when units of different sizes are compared.

show abstract

What do we know about the h index?

Cited by 524 publications

References 25 publications

Citations to Australian Astronomy: 5- and 10-Year Benchmarks

Citations to Australian Astronomy: 5- and 10-Year Benchmarks

Certainty equivalent citation: generalized classes of citation indexes

Journal Impact Factors for evaluating scientific performance: use of h-like indicators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About