IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v106y2016i1d10.1007_s11192-015-1776-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The H-index paradox: your coauthors have a higher H-index than you do

Author

Listed:
  • Fabrício Benevenuto

    (Federal University of Minas Gerais)

  • Alberto H. F. Laender

    (Federal University of Minas Gerais)

  • Bruno L. Alves

    (Federal University of Minas Gerais)

Abstract

One interesting phenomenon that emerges from the typical structure of social networks is the friendship paradox. It states that your friends have on average more friends than you do. Recent efforts have explored variations of it, with numerous implications for the dynamics of social networks. However, the friendship paradox and its variations consider only the topological structure of the networks and neglect many other characteristics that are correlated with node degree. In this article, we take the case of scientific collaborations to investigate whether a similar paradox also arises in terms of a researcher’s scientific productivity as measured by her H-index. The H-index is a widely used metric in academia to capture both the quality and the quantity of a researcher’s scientific output. It is likely that a researcher may use her coauthors’ H-indexes as a way to infer whether her own H-index is adequate in her research area. Nevertheless, in this article, we show that the average H-index of a researcher’s coauthors is usually higher than her own H-index. We present empirical evidence of this paradox and discuss some of its potential consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabrício Benevenuto & Alberto H. F. Laender & Bruno L. Alves, 2016. "The H-index paradox: your coauthors have a higher H-index than you do," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 469-474, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:106:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1776-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1776-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1776-2
    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/s11192-015-1776-2?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. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2005. "Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 65(3), pages 391-392, December.
    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. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    2. Shen, Hongquan & Cheng, Ying & Ju, Xiufang & Xie, Juan, 2022. "Rethinking the effect of inter-gender collaboration on research performance for scholars," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    3. Kong, Xiangjie & Mao, Mengyi & Jiang, Huizhen & Yu, Shuo & Wan, Liangtian, 2019. "How does collaboration affect researchers’ positions in co-authorship networks?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 887-900.
    4. 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.
    5. João Mateus Freitas Veneroso & Marlon Dias & Alberto Ueda & Sabir Ribas & Berthier Ribeiro-Neto & Nivio Ziviani & Edmundo Souza e Silva, 2019. "P-score: a reputation bibliographic index that complements citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1269-1291, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Mohadab, Mohamed El & Bouikhalene, Belaid & Safi, Said, 2020. "Bibliometric method for mapping the state of the art of scientific production in Covid-19," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    3. Dejian Yu & Sun Meng, 2018. "An overview of biomass energy research with bibliometric indicators," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(4), pages 576-590, June.
    4. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    5. Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2008. "An axiomatic analysis of Egghe’s g-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 364-368.
    6. Amin Mazloumian, 2012. "Predicting Scholars' Scientific Impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-5, November.
    7. Thomas R. Anderson & Robin K. S. Hankin & Peter D. Killworth, 2008. "Beyond the Durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(3), pages 577-588, September.
    8. Sameer Kumar & Jariah Mohd. Jan, 2013. "Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 491-517, December.
    9. Montoya, Francisco G. & García-Cruz, Amós & Montoya, Maria G. & Manzano-Agugliaro, Francisco, 2016. "Power quality techniques research worldwide: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 846-856.
    10. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.
    11. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2012. "HistCite analysis of papers constituting the h index research front," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 285-288.
    12. Josep Freixas & Roger Hoerl & William S. Zwicker, 2023. "Nash's bargaining problem and the scale-invariant Hirsch citation index," Papers 2309.01192, arXiv.org.
    13. Roger Fouquet, 2012. "Economics of Energy and Climate Change: Origins, Developments and Growth," Working Papers 2012-08, BC3.
    14. Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2008. "An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch-index," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 224-232, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2017. "Does evaluative scientometrics lose its main focus on scientific quality by the new orientation towards societal impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 937-943, February.
    17. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    18. Anthony F. J. Raan, 2006. "Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 491-502, June.
    19. Yiming Xiao & Han Wu & Guohua Wang & Hong Mei, 2021. "Mapping the Worldwide Trends on Energy Poverty Research: A Bibliometric Analysis (1999–2019)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-22, February.
    20. Antonis Sidiropoulos & Dimitrios Katsaros & Yannis Manolopoulos, 2007. "Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(2), pages 253-280, August.

    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:106:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1776-2. 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.