The Hirsch index and related impact measures

Egghe, Leo

doi:10.1002/aris.2010.1440440109

Cited by 207 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 183 publications

(296 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2005, the h-index [3] was introduced and was quickly incorporated as a means to control for chance authorship. The h-index attempts to identify a researcher’s career impact while excluding outlying successes and failures; but the h-index is also criticized, especially if used as a sole metric for comparing researchers across disciplines due to variations between disciplines [15]. Other metrics exist, but any such indicator has its shortcomings and also influences a researcher’s decisions in publication of scientific data or how much risk to take in a research career.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research productivity of doctor of physical therapy faculty promoted in the southeastern United States

Littman

Sonne

Smith

2017

Medical Education Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Little information exists on the research productivity of successfully promoted tenure-track Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) faculty. Objective: To determine the research productivity that typically results in successful promotion. Design: We collected publicly available curriculum vitae (CVs) from faculty currently in accredited DPT programs and who had been successfully promoted from an institution in the southeastern USA from 2000 through 2016.Total publication count, journal impact factor, funding, citations, and other metrics were analysed from 45 subjects of 22 of the 64 CAPTE-accredited DPT programs in the southeast. Results: None of the studied metrics were normally distributed with time to promotion as determined by a Shapiro-Wilk test. These faculty exhibited a median publication count of 4, range 0 to 43; median of average citation count of 12.4, range 0 to 87.25; median of average journal impact factor of 2.866, range 0 to 6.280; median external funding received of $9910, range $0.00 to $19 543 198; and median author h-index of 3, range 0 to 17. The median number of years before promotion was 6, ranging from 3 to 13 years. Linear regression analysis indicates a poor fit with no significant correlation between years before promotion and any of the studied metrics. No correlation between journal impact factor and number of citations was observed (m = −0.22, p = 0.728, R2 = 0.0003). Prior to promotion 31% (14 of 45) did not receive external funding and 24% (11 of 45) had a 0 h-index. The Carnegie Classification of the institution did not significantly correlate with research productivity metrics in this dataset (p = 0.213). Conclusion: While faculty unsuccessful in promotion were not identifiable using this method, this research can be used by faculty and committees to evaluate research productivity against regional data and promote competitive standards with peer institutions. Abbreviations: CAPTE: Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapist Education; DPT: Doctor of Physical Therapy

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research productivity of doctor of physical therapy faculty promoted in the southeastern United States

Littman

Sonne

Smith

2017

Medical Education Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As detailed in Woeginger (2008c) (see also Woeginger, 2009) there are in fact two versions of the g-index that were introduced by Egghe (2006). The one that we use here corresponds to the "Note added in proof" in Egghe (2006, p. 145) and is similar to the version studied in Woeginger (2008c).…”

Section: Remark 23mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has often been argued (Alonso et al, 2009, Egghe, 2010a, Hirsch, 2005, Norris and Oppenheim, 2010, Ruscio et al, 2012) that the h-index was combining "quantity" (number of papers) and "quality" (number of citations) in a way that leads to a robust ranking and index. Indeed, the h-index does not reward the publication of lowly cited papers.…”

Section: Classic and "Modern" Rankings And Indicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides this clear limitation of our work, we would like to stress some others. First, we have not studied the incredibly many variants of the h-and g-index that have been proposed in the literature (see Alonso et al, 2009, Egghe, 2010a, Norris and Oppenheim, 2010, Ruscio et al, 2012, Schreiber et al, 2011. This would have been clearly impossible within a single paper.…”

Section: Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the huge literature (for review, see Alonso, Cabreziro, Herrera-Viedma, and Herrera, 2009, Egghe, 2010a, Norris and Oppenheim, 2010, Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, and Mahalchik, 2012, Schreiber, Malesios, and Psarakis, 2011 on the h-index and its variants (Rousseau, García-Zoritad, and Sanz-Casadod, 2013, have seen this development as a "bubble"), there is already as sizeable literature on the axiomatic analysis of the h-index, most notably Woeginger (2008a,b), Deineko and Woeginger (2009), Quesada (2009Quesada ( , 2010Quesada ( , 2011a, Hwang (2013), Miroiu (2013), and Kongo (2014) 1 . The axiomatic literature on the g-index is less abundant but nevertheless exists: Woeginger (2008c, 2009), and Quesada (2011a.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices

Bouyssou

Marchant

2014

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyzes several well-known bibliometric indices using an axiomatic approach. We concentrate on indices aiming at capturing the global impact of a scientific output and do not investigate indices aiming at capturing an average impact. Hence, the indices that we study are designed to evaluate authors or groups of authors but not journals. The bibliometric indices that are studied include classic ones such as the number of highly cited papers as well as more recent ones such as the h-index and the g-index. We give conditions that characterize these indices, up to the multiplication by a positive constant. We also study the bibliometric rankings that are induced by these indices. Hence, we provide a general framework for the comparison of bibliometric rankings and indices.

show abstract

Bibliography

2016

Handbook of Bibliometric Indicators

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Hirsch index and related impact measures

Cited by 207 publications

References 183 publications

Research productivity of doctor of physical therapy faculty promoted in the southeastern United States

Research productivity of doctor of physical therapy faculty promoted in the southeastern United States

An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices

Bibliography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About