The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level

Abstract

The relationship of the h-index with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level is analysed for Spanish CSIC scientists in Natural Resources, using publications downloaded from the Web of Science (1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004). Different activity and impact indicators were obtained to describe the research performance of scientists in different dimensions, being the h-index located through factor analysis in a quantitative dimension highly correlated with the absolute number of publications and citations. The need to include the remaining dimensions in the analysis of research performance of scientists and the risks of relying only on the h-index are stressed. The hypothesis that the achievement of some highly visible but intermediate-productive authors might be underestimated when compared with other scientists by means of the h-index is tested.

Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations

“…This is especially the case in disciplines where it is known or required that the h-index is one of the hiring or promotion criteria [26,27]. Concerns with, and deficiencies of, this system are sometimes pointed out by those who object to the h-index or to how it is calculated [28]. In our opinion, it is a quality criterion, to be considered like many other subjective measures.…”

A avaliação da produtividade científica

“…If the h-index is an indicator of recognition on the part of the scientific community, forging a successful academic career is about obtaining increasingly greater recognitionin order to break through h thresholds (Grupo Scimago, 2006). However, this indicator distorts individual evaluation because it does not allow for comparisons between disciplines (reference and article counts) and especially because it penalizes scientists who publish selectively (Costas, Bordons, 2007).…”

Moving Beyond Counting Publications to Assess Impact

“…Continuing the above example, the first researcher's m-quotient would still be 3 while the second researcher's m-quotient drops to 0.3, showing a clear difference in productivity. After Hirsch's article was published, issues with the h-index and m-quotient were noted by other researchers (Alonso, Cabrerizo, Herrera-Viedma, & Herrera, 2009;Bornmann & Hans-Dieter, 2007;Costas & Bordons, 2007;Jin, 2006;Rousseau, 2006;Saleem, 2011;Wendl, 2007). For example, the actual number of citations for the mostly highly cited articles is irrelevant to the index: Someone whose work has been cited 1, 2, 3, 3, and 3 times will have an h-index of three, just like in the example above, even though in this case there are fewer total citations.…”