An h index for Mendeley: comparison of citation-based h indices and a readership-based hmen index for 29 authors

Askeridis, Johanna M.

doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2882-8

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, the simple Altmetrics count is not robust against manipulations either. To this end, Askeridis (2018) proposed an Altmetrics-based h-index, namely, Mendeley-based h-index, which replaces the citation count with the view count of Mendeley readers. Mendeley is a free reference manager and academic social network.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing research leadership on geographically weighted collaboration network

Zhang

2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research collaborations, especially long-distance and international collaborations, have become increasingly prevalent worldwide. Recent studies highlighted the significant role of research leadership in collaborations. However, existing measures of the research leadership do not take into account the intensity of leadership in the co-authorship network. More importantly, the spatial features, which influence the collaboration patterns and research outcomes, have not been incorporated in measuring the research leadership. To fill the gap, we construct an institution-level weighted co-authorship network that integrates two types of weight on the edges: the intensity of collaborations and the spatial score (the geographical distance adjusted by the cross-linguistic-border nature). Based on this network, we propose a novel metric, namely the spatial research leadership rank, to identify the leading institutions while considering both the collaboration intensity and the spatial features. The leadership of an institution is measured by the following three criteria: (a) the institution frequently plays the corresponding rule in papers with other institutions; (b) the institution frequently plays the corresponding rule in longer distance and even cross-linguistic-border collaborations; (c) the participating institutions led by the institution have high leadership status themselves. Harnessing a dataset of 323,146 journal publications in pharmaceutical sciences during 2010-2018, we perform a comprehensive analysis of the geographical distribution and dynamic patterns of research leadership flows at the institution level. The results demonstrate that the SpatialLeaderRank outperforms baseline metrics in predicting the scholarly impact of institutions. And the result remains robust in the field of Information Science and Library Science.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing research leadership on geographically weighted collaboration network

Zhang

2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is easy to identify lots of variants of the h-index concerning both, the basis of the data as well as the concrete formula of calculation. Working with the numbers of publications and their citations, there are the data based upon the leading general bibliographical information services Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Google Scholar, and, additionally, on ResearchGate (da Silva and Dobranszki 2018); working with publication numbers and the number of the publications' reads, there are data based upon Mendeley (Askeridis 2018). Depending of an author's visibility on an information service (Dorsch 2017), we see different values for the h-indices for WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar (Bar-Ilan 2008), mostly following the inequation h(R) WoS < h(R) Scopus < h(R) Google Scholar for a given researcher R (Dorsch et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The h-index is a widely used scientometric indicator on the researcher level working with a simple combination of publication and citation counts. In this article, we pursue two goals, namely the collection of empirical data about researchers’ personal estimations of the importance of the h-index for themselves as well as for their academic disciplines, and on the researchers’ concrete knowledge on the h-index and the way of its calculation. We worked with an online survey (including a knowledge test on the calculation of the h-index), which was finished by 1081 German university professors. We distinguished between the results for all participants, and, additionally, the results by gender, generation, and field of knowledge. We found a clear binary division between the academic knowledge fields: For the sciences and medicine the h-index is important for the researchers themselves and for their disciplines, while for the humanities and social sciences, economics, and law the h-index is considerably less important. Two fifths of the professors do not know details on the h-index or wrongly deem to know what the h-index is and failed our test. The researchers’ knowledge on the h-index is much smaller in the academic branches of the humanities and the social sciences. As the h-index is important for many researchers and as not all researchers are very knowledgeable about this author-specific indicator, it seems to be necessary to make researchers more aware of scholarly metrics literacy.

show abstract

“…Las diferencias de datos recuperados por Scopus son relativamente menores a los resultados en Google Scholar, esto se debe a que Google Scholar recupera artículos de revistas indexadas y no indexadas (Chiroque-Solano y Chiroque-Solano, 2017, p. 169), en cambio de la base de datos Scopus solo pueden ser recuperados artículos de revistas que se encuentren indexadas en él.Los números de índice h que se observan en Google Scholar son mucho mayores que en Scopus, lo que supone también que, pese a la cantidad de publicaciones de investigadores paraguayos, es menor la presencia de los artículos en bases de datos indexadas en Scopus; por su parte Espínola de Canata (2011) refiere a que "Paraguay presenta el número más bajo de publicaciones arbitradas y consultadas" (p.182).En efecto, se destaca que 35 investigadores no cuentan con publicaciones en Scopus, lo que expone al investigador paraguayo como reto el desafío de publicar sus artículos científicos en revistas indexadas de Scopus "dada su calidad, impacto y reconocimiento dentro de la comunidad científica, para compartir nuevos conocimientos sustentados en evidencia científica confiable" (Zavaleta-Lopez et al, 2019, p. 4) y por su impacto a nivel internacional. Si bien está latente el desafío de publicar en revistas de alto impacto, y de esta forma "tomar conciencia de la importancia de visibilizar sus resultados de investigación a través de publicaciones en revistas indexada" (Ramírez-Vega y Meneses-Guillén, 2017, p. 17).En cuanto a los resultados del estudio, favorece evidentemente a los investigadores de mayor trayectoria, ya que el 45 % de la población se encontraba en el sesgo de edad de 50 años en adelante, pues "Hirsch propone un Índice h de 20 después de veinte años de carrera como un indicador de buen rendimiento científico"(Masiá et al, 2013, p. 137), lo que significaría una ventaja solo para los investigadores nóveles, sobre elloAskeridis (2018) sugiere que "tal vez habría que sugerir un valor umbral para la edad científica a fin de hacer una comparación razonable" (p.622) y justa.…”

unclassified

Índice h de investigadores paraguayos de las disciplinas de medicina, bioquímica y biología, 2019-2020

Rojas

Samudio

2022

e-Ciencias de la Información

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Se han propuesto varios indicadores bibliométricos para evaluar el desempeño de los investigadores a nivel mundial, uno de ellos es el índice h que considera tanto el número de publicaciones como las citas recibidas, y posiciona a los investigadores según una escala propuesta por Jorge Hirsch en investigador exitoso (h=20), excelentes científicos (h=40) y como un individuo singular (h=60). El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar el desempeño de investigadores paraguayos de las disciplinas de medicina, bioquímica y biología a través del Índice h de Hirsch comparando Google Scholar y Scopus. Es un estudio descriptivo con enfoque cuantitativo. Se incluyeron todos los investigadores paraguayos de las áreas mencionadas cuyos datos se encontraban disponibles en Google Scholar y/o Scopus. Para la identificación inicial de los investigadores se recurrió al cvpy disponible en la página web del CONACYT, Paraguay, y se utilizó el software Publish or Perish. Se identificaron 158 investigadores, de ellos ocho están posicionados en la escala de Hirsch. El 13 % de los investigadores tuvieron un índice h igual o mayor a 10 en Google Scholar y Scopus, correspondiendo al área de medicina el valor más alto, 54 en Google Scholar y 47 en Scopus. El desempeño de los investigadores por el índice h está por debajo de la región. Existe necesidad de mayor inversión en las revistas científicas nacionales para su indexación en bases de datos que colecciona revistas de mayor impacto.

show abstract

An h index for Mendeley: comparison of citation-based h indices and a readership-based hmen index for 29 authors

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Characterizing research leadership on geographically weighted collaboration network

Characterizing research leadership on geographically weighted collaboration network

Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?

Índice h de investigadores paraguayos de las disciplinas de medicina, bioquímica y biología, 2019-2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About