IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/akt/journl/v15y2020i3p331-355.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of the Algorithm for Calculating the h-Index and Its Modifications

Author

Listed:
  • Petr Gerasimenko

    (Emperor Alexander I St. Petersburg State Transport University)

Abstract

Introduction. The article presents a comparative analysis of existing algorithms for calculating the h-index and a number of its modifications that use the same basic idea or make use of its algorithm as the starting point. What makes the study relevant is the significant demand for a better approach to assessing the publication activity of researchers over the existing h-index algorithm. Methods. The study looks at the following 7 indexes that assess a researcher’s scientific output: h-index; g-index (by Leo Egghe); j-index (the Mikhailov index); gh-index; hp-index; ghp-index; w-index. The main method used in the study is analysis; other formal logic methods that were also used in the study include synthesis, classification, deduction, and induction. Results and Discussion. The quantitative and qualitative indicators proposed in the article were used to carry out the compar-ative analysis of the algorithms behind all of the aforementioned indexes. One common feature of all these algorithms is that they all rely on the basic h-index procedure, while the difference is the degree to which each index takes into account all the publications and citations of a specific researcher. It was established that only the algorithms used in the gh-, hp-, and ghp-indexes take into account the entire set of a given author’s publications. Meanwhile, the gh-index should best be regarded as an index of basic publications (it establishes the significance of the researcher’s publications), while the hp-index is best viewed as a measure of the intensity of the researcher’s work. As far as the ghp-index is concerned, it should only be used in situations in which the gh- or hp-indexes produce the same results. Amongst the algorithms for all the indexes reviewed in the article, the ones that best reflect a researcher’s achievements are the gh-, hp-, and ghp-indexes, but they are somewhat more complex than the h-, g- и j-indexes. Conclusion. The analysis we carried out should make it possible to select the best algorithm depending on the complexity of the distribution of citations of published papers in order to achieve the desired level of assessment of a researcher’s publications.

Suggested Citation

  • Petr Gerasimenko, 2020. "Comparative Analysis of the Algorithm for Calculating the h-Index and Its Modifications," Science Governance and Scientometrics Journal, Russian Research Institute of Economics, Politics and Law in Science and Technology (RIEPL), vol. 15(3), pages 331-355, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:akt:journl:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:331-355
    DOI: 10.33873/2686-6706.2020.15-3.331-355
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://en.sie-journal.ru/assets/uploads/issues/2020/3(37)_03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.33873/2686-6706.2020.15-3.331-355?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samreen Ayaz & Nayyer Masood, 2020. "Comparison of researchers’ impact indices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu-Wei Chang & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2021. "Do extraordinary science and technology scientists balance their publishing and patenting activities?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Xiao Liu & Cathy Ping Xie, 2023. "How Person–Organization Fit Impacts Work Performance: Evidence from Researchers in Ten Countries during the COVID-19," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Marek Gagolewski & Barbara Żogała-Siudem & Grzegorz Siudem & Anna Cena, 2022. "Ockham’s index of citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2829-2845, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:akt:journl:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:331-355. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lubov Pudovkina (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://riep.ru/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.