The h-index and self-citations

Engqvist, Leif; Frommen, Joachim G.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.009

Cited by 153 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this certainly is possible, it is important to realize that repeated self-citation would be needed to significantly influence an author's h-index score. 15,16,22 Some also have suggested that being a coauthor on a paper of someone producing significant research output is another route for h inflation, echoing the argument that author order or significance of contributions is not valued with this metric. 5 Although this is certainly a valid point, it should not have a significant effect on an individual's h-index unless the individual is repeatedly a coauthor with someone else who is producing influential research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

Svider¹,

Pashkova²,

Choudhry³

et al. 2013

The Laryngoscope

111

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis The h‐index, a bibliometric indicator that objectively characterizes the impact of an author's scholarship, is an effective tool that may be considered by academic departments for decisions related to hiring and faculty advancement. Our objective was to characterize the scholarly productivity of academic surgeons from different specialties relative to otolaryngologists. Study Design Analysis of a bibliometric database. Methods The h‐indices of 2,429 faculty members within surgical specialties at 20 randomly selected academic institutions were calculated using the Scopus database and were examined to determine relationship with academic rank and comparison among surgical subspecialties. Results The h‐index statistically increased with academic rank. Mean h‐indices were as follows: assistant professor, 4.37 (range, 2.73–6.69); associate professor, 8.70 (6.53–11.02); professor, 16.44 (13.39–20.45); and chairperson, 20.79 (14.81–27.89). Mean increase between academic rank was 5.47, with the largest increase between the levels of associate professor and professor. Further examination demonstrated statistically significant increases through all academic ranks for most, but not all, individual specialties. Urologists, general surgeons, and neurosurgeons had the highest mean h‐indices. Conclusions h‐indices among the different surgical specialties vary and are potentially impacted by the number of practitioners as well as research emphasis within a field. The mean h‐index of academic otolaryngologists falls in the lower values for academic surgeons. Because this metric varies among different fields, it is most relevant for comparison when examining values within a field. H‐indices reliably increase with increasing academic rank through professor and offer a quantifiable and objective alternative to other metrics when evaluating faculty members for academic advancement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

Svider¹,

Pashkova²,

Choudhry³

et al. 2013

The Laryngoscope

111

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The h-index was first described in the field of physics, and the h-index has also been shown to be relatively resistant to distortion by self-citations. 2,20 While the h-index has been used to describe academic productivity in several disciplines, it is not a useful metric to compare individuals across all of academia, as the publication patterns of individuals vary widely between disciplines. 21 Therefore, while the productivity of individuals in any given field of study might well be characterized and compared using the h-index, it is essential that the distribution be rederived for each academic specialty to ensure that there is a rational basis for comparison between individuals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Distribution of the H‐index Among Academic Emergency Physicians in the United States

DeLuca

John

Stolz

et al. 2013

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hirsch's h-index (h) attempts to measure the combined academic impact and productivity of a scientist by counting the number of publications by an author, ranked in descending order by number of citations, until the paper number equals the number of citations. This approach provides a natural number or index of the number of publications and the number of citations per publication. H was first described in physics and was demonstrated to be highly predictive of continued academic activity, including recognized measures of scientific excellence such as membership in the National Academy of Sciences and being a Nobel laureate. Citation rates, research environments, and years of experience all affect h, making any comparisons appropriate only for scientists working in the same field for a similar time period. The authors are unaware of any report describing the distribution of h among academic emergency physicians (AEPs).

show abstract

“…These issues and other potential limitations of the h index have been widely reported in the literature. 3,7,9,10,[12][13][14][15]18,23,25,26,[28][29][30]35,[39][40][41] Despite these known limitations, the h index is an objective measure that takes into account the frequency with which a faculty member has had an impact upon scholarly discourse within a field and has been shown in many analyses to have a strong association with academic promotion, receiving external funding, graduate medical education, and a variety of other factors measuring achievement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing National Institutes of Health funding and scholarly impact in neurological surgery

Svider

Husain

Folbe

et al. 2014

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object Research productivity is increasingly important in academic neurological surgery and can be measured through a variety of methods, such as publications, objective bibliometrics, and securing external grant support. The authors' objectives were to determine whether there is an association between scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, and successful National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding awarded to faculty in neurological surgery departments. Methods Primary investigators receiving National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards from Fiscal Years 2011–2013 were organized by academic rank, terminal degree, and their h index, as calculated from the Scopus database. These data were also obtained for nonfunded faculty from 15 randomly selected departments for comparison, and the average h index for each group was calculated. Results National Institutes of Health–funded faculty had higher average h indices than their nonfunded colleagues (23.6 vs 10.8, p < 0.0001), a finding that persisted upon controlling for academic rank. The mean h index increased with successive academic rank in both cohorts; greater funding totals were seen with successive academic position (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.05). National Institutes of Health–funded MDs had higher h indices than their PhD colleagues (p = 0.04), although funding levels did not differ significantly. There was a trend of increasing h index with higher NIH-funding ranges (p < 0.05). Conclusions The authors' findings demonstrate a strong relationship between scholarly impact and securing NIH funding among faculty in academic neurosurgical departments. Faculty receiving a greater amount of funding tended to have a higher h index. Mean scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, increased with successive academic rank among both NIH-funded and nonfunded faculty, suggesting that this bibliometric may have utility as an adjunct in the academic appointment and promotion process in academic neurological surgery.

show abstract

The h-index and self-citations

Cited by 153 publications

References 7 publications

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: An examination of 2429 academic surgeons

The Distribution of the H‐index Among Academic Emergency Physicians in the United States

Assessing National Institutes of Health funding and scholarly impact in neurological surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About