IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v105y2015i3d10.1007_s11192-015-1622-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of bibliometric measures for assessing relative importance of researchers

Author

Listed:
  • Rok Blagus

    (University of Ljubljana)

  • Brane L. Leskošek

    (University of Ljubljana)

  • Janez Stare

    (University of Ljubljana)

Abstract

Quantitative evaluation of citation data to support funding decisions has become widespread. For this purpose there exist many measures (indices) and while their properties were well studied there is little comprehensive experimental comparison of the ranking lists obtained when using different methods. A further problem of the existing studies is that lack of available data about net citations prevents researchers from studying the effect of measuring scientific impact by using net citations (all citations minus self-citations). In this paper we use simulated data to study factors that could potentially influence the degree of agreement between the rankings obtained when using different indices with the emphasis given to the comparison of the number of net citations per author to other more established indices. We observe that the researchers publishing papers with a large number of co-authors are systematically ranked higher when using h-index or total citations (TC) instead of the number of citations per author (TCA), that the researchers who publish a small proportion of papers which receive many citations while the rest of their papers receive only few citations are systematically ranked higher when using TCA or TC instead of h-index, and that the authors who have lower proportion of self-citations are ranked higher when considering indices which include the number of net citations in comparison with indices considering only the total citation count. Results are verified and illustrated also by analyzing a large dataset from the field of medical science in Slovenia for the period 1986–2007.

Suggested Citation

  • Rok Blagus & Brane L. Leskošek & Janez Stare, 2015. "Comparison of bibliometric measures for assessing relative importance of researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1743-1762, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:105:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1622-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1622-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1622-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1622-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Hug, Sven E. & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2011. "A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 346-359.
    2. Leo Egghe, 2006. "Theory and practise of the g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 131-152, October.
    3. Bras-Amorós, Maria & Domingo-Ferrer, Josep & Torra, Vicenç, 2011. "A bibliometric index based on the collaboration distance between cited and citing authors," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 248-264.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2008. "Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(5), pages 830-837, March.
    5. John Panaretos & Chrisovaladis Malesios, 2009. "Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 635-670, December.
    6. Juan Imperial & Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro, 2007. "Usefulness of Hirsch’s h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(2), pages 271-282, May.
    7. Richard S. J. Tol, 2011. "Credit where credit’s due: accounting for co-authorship in citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 291-299, October.
    8. Pablo D. Batista & Mônica G. Campiteli & Osame Kinouchi, 2006. "Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(1), pages 179-189, July.
    9. Nicole J. Saam & L. Reiter, 1999. "Lotka's law reconsidered: The evolution of publication and citation distributions in scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(2), pages 135-155, February.
    10. Lutz Bornmann & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2007. "What do we know about the h index?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(9), pages 1381-1385, July.
    11. Christoph Bartneck & Servaas Kokkelmans, 2011. "Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 85-98, April.
    12. Wolfgang Glänzel, 2006. "On the h-index - A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(2), pages 315-321, May.
    13. Leo Egghe, 2005. "A characterization of the law of Lotka in terms of sampling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(3), pages 321-328, March.
    14. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans-Dieter Daniel & Gerlind Wallon & Anna Ledin, 2009. "Are there really two types of h index variants? A validation study by using molecular life sciences data," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 185-190, September.
    15. Schreiber, Michael, 2008. "A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 211-216.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yufei Wang & Mangirdas Morkūnas & Jinzhao Wei, 2024. "Mapping the Landscape of Climate-Smart Agriculture and Food Loss: A Bibliometric and Bibliographic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-24, September.
    2. Boris Forthmann & Mark Leveling & Yixiao Dong & Denis Dumas, 2020. "Investigating the quantity–quality relationship in scientific creativity: an empirical examination of expected residual variance and the tilted funnel hypothesis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2497-2518, September.
    3. Fabio Zagonari, 2019. "Scientific Production and Productivity for Characterizing an Author’s Publication History: Simple and Nested Gini’s and Hirsch’s Indexes Combined," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-30, May.
    4. Xinyi Chen, 2023. "Does cross-field influence regional and field-specific distributions of highly cited researchers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 825-840, January.
    5. Gordana Budimir & Sophia Rahimeh & Sameh Tamimi & Primož Južnič, 2021. "Comparison of self-citation patterns in WoS and Scopus databases based on national scientific production in Slovenia (1996–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2249-2267, March.

    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. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Hug, Sven E. & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2011. "A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 346-359.
    2. Ana Paula dos Santos Rubem & Ariane Lima Moura & João Carlos Correia Baptista Soares de Mello, 2015. "Comparative analysis of some individual bibliometric indices when applied to groups of researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 1019-1035, January.
    3. Asma Hammami & Nabil Semmar, 2022. "The simplex simulation as a tool to reveal publication strategies and citation factors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 319-350, January.
    4. Lorna Wildgaard & Jesper W. Schneider & Birger Larsen, 2014. "A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 125-158, October.
    5. Brandão, Luana Carneiro & Soares de Mello, João Carlos Correia Baptista, 2019. "A multi-criteria approach to the h-index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 357-363.
    6. Persson, Rasmus A.X., 2017. "Bibliometric author evaluation through linear regression on the coauthor network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 299-306.
    7. John Panaretos & Chrisovaladis Malesios, 2009. "Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 635-670, December.
    8. Pablo Dorta-González & María-Isabel Dorta-González, 2011. "Central indexes to the citation distribution: a complement to the h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 729-745, September.
    9. Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru, 2016. "A theoretical evaluation of Hirsch-type bibliometric indicators confronted with extreme self-citation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 552-566.
    10. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    11. J. W. Fedderke, 2013. "The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed against bibliometric indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 177-206, November.
    12. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas & David Adams, 2014. "hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 811-821, June.
    13. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    14. van Eck, Nees Jan & Waltman, Ludo, 2008. "Generalizing the h- and g-indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 263-271.
    15. Christopher McCarty & James W. Jawitz & Allison Hopkins & Alex Goldman, 2013. "Predicting author h-index using characteristics of the co-author network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 467-483, August.
    16. Zhang, Lin & Thijs, Bart & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2011. "The diffusion of H-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 583-593.
    17. Alonso, S. & Cabrerizo, F.J. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2009. "h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 273-289.
    18. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2010. "The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 407-414.
    19. Marcin Kozak & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "A New Family of Cumulative Indexes for Measuring Scientific Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-4, October.
    20. Corey J A Bradshaw & Justin M Chalker & Stefani A Crabtree & Bart A Eijkelkamp & John A Long & Justine R Smith & Kate Trinajstic & Vera Weisbecker, 2021. "A fairer way to compare researchers at any career stage and in any discipline using open-access citation data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-15, September.

    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:spr:scient:v:105:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1622-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.