IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v115y2018i2d10.1007_s11192-018-2684-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rejoinder to “Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes”

Author

Listed:
  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
  • Judit Dobránszki

    (University of Debrecen)

Abstract

In a Letter to the Editor, the authors of this paper show, to highlight the practical risks of using the h-index, how academics’ data and bibliometric information can be misrepresented. In this rejoinder, we examine the comments offered in letters by Judit Bar-Ilan, Rodrigo Costas and Thomas Franssen, as well as Lutz Bornmann and Loet Leydesdorff, to offer additional insight and critique. This form of open debate about a topic that may potentially affect many academics is an excellent initiative by Scientometrics, and widens the possibilities of holding journal-based discussion forums rather than in informal journal clubs or blogs. We continue to believe that the h-index has some value by offering a crude measure of productivity, but not when used alone. How the accuracy of different h-indexes is calculated, and how h-index-based productivity is associated with academic quality are issues that merit greater research. Finally, we confirm that the Web of Science database search function for compound family names gives erroneous output which can disadvantage those academics with such family names.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2018. "Rejoinder to “Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1131-1137, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2684-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2684-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2684-z
    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/s11192-018-2684-z?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. Isabelle Dorsch, 2017. "Relative visibility of authors’ publications in different information services," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 917-925, August.
    2. Judit Bar-Ilan, 2018. "Comments on the Letter to the Editor on “Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes” by Jaime A. Teixera da Silva and Judit Dobránszki," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1115-1117, May.
    3. Rodrigo Costas & Thomas Franssen, 2018. "Reflections around ‘the cautionary use’ of the h-index: response to Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1125-1130, May.
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Loet Leydesdorff, 2018. "Count highly-cited papers instead of papers with h citations: use normalized citation counts and compare “like with like”!," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1119-1123, May.
    5. Hirotaka Kawashima & Hiroyuki Tomizawa, 2015. "Accuracy evaluation of Scopus Author ID based on the largest funding database in Japan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1061-1071, June.
    6. Omar Hernando Avila-Poveda, 2014. "Technical report: the trend of author compound names and its implications for authorship identity identification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 833-846, October.
    7. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2018. "Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1107-1113, May.
    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. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2018. "The Google Scholar h-index: useful but burdensome metric," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 631-635, October.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Loet Leydesdorff, 2018. "Count highly-cited papers instead of papers with h citations: use normalized citation counts and compare “like with like”!," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1119-1123, May.
    3. Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro & Ricardo Brito, 2019. "Probability and expected frequency of breakthroughs: basis and use of a robust method of research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 213-235, April.
    4. Johanna M. Askeridis, 2018. "An h index for Mendeley: comparison of citation-based h indices and a readership-based hmen index for 29 authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 615-624, October.
    5. Rodrigo Costas & Thomas Franssen, 2018. "Reflections around ‘the cautionary use’ of the h-index: response to Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1125-1130, May.
    6. James Hartley, 2019. "Some reflections on being cited 10,000 times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 375-381, January.

    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. Guangyuan Hu & Lei Wang & Rong Ni & Weishu Liu, 2020. "Which h-index? An exploration within the Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1225-1233, June.
    2. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    3. Balázs Győrffy & Andrea Magda Nagy & Péter Herman & Ádám Török, 2018. "Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 409-426, October.
    4. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2021. "The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3667-3672, April.
    5. Margaret K. Merga & Sayidi Mat Roni & Shannon Mason, 2020. "Should Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2505-2522, December.
    6. James Hartley, 2019. "Some reflections on being cited 10,000 times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 375-381, January.
    7. Alonso Rodríguez-Navarro & Ricardo Brito, 2019. "Probability and expected frequency of breakthroughs: basis and use of a robust method of research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 213-235, April.
    8. Lauranne Chaignon & Domingo Docampo & Daniel Egret, 2023. "In search of a scientific elite: highly cited researchers (HCR) in France," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5801-5827, October.
    9. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    10. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Mid-career field switches reduce gender disparities in academic publishing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1365-1383, June.
    11. Orhan, Mehmet A. & van Rossenberg, Yvonne & Bal, P. Matthijs, 2024. "Authorship inequality and elite dominance in management and organizational research: A review of six decades," OSF Preprints tzx92, Center for Open Science.
    12. Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Nees Jan Eck, 2020. "Collecting large-scale publication data at the level of individual researchers: a practical proposal for author name disambiguation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 883-907, May.
    13. Isabelle Dorsch & Johanna M. Askeridis & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2018. "Truebounded, Overbounded, or Underbounded? Scientists’ Personal Publication Lists versus Lists Generated through Bibliographic Information Services," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, February.
    14. Rachel Einecker & Andrew Kirby, 2020. "Climate Change: A Bibliometric Study of Adaptation, Mitigation and Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    15. Liu, Meijun & Hu, Xiao, 2021. "Will collaborators make scientists move? A Generalized Propensity Score analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    16. Zhang, Lin & Qi, Fan & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Liang, Liming & Campbell, David, 2023. "Gender differences in the patterns and consequences of changing specialization in scientific careers," SocArXiv ep5bx, Center for Open Science.
    17. Yang, Alex Jie & Wu, Linwei & Zhang, Qi & Wang, Hao & Deng, Sanhong, 2023. "The k-step h-index in citation networks at the paper, author, and institution levels," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    18. Wang, Zhiqi & Chen, Yue & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    19. Xinyi Zhao & Samin Aref & Emilio Zagheni & Guy Stecklov, 2022. "Return migration of German-affiliated researchers: analyzing departure and return by gender, cohort, and discipline using Scopus bibliometric data 1996–2020," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7707-7729, December.
    20. Katrin Hussinger & Lorenzo Palladini, 2024. "Information accessibility and knowledge creation: the impact of Google’s withdrawal from China on scientific research," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 753-783, July.

    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:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2684-z. 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.