IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v120y2019i2d10.1007_s11192-019-03147-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

R package for producing beamplots as a preferred alternative to the h index when assessing single researchers (based on downloads from Web of Science)

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Haunschild

    (Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research)

  • Lutz Bornmann

    (Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society)

  • Jonathan Adams

    (ISI Clarivate Analytics
    King’s College London)

Abstract

We propose the use of beamplots—which can be produced by using the R package BibPlots and WoS downloads—as a preferred alternative to h index values for assessing single researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Haunschild & Lutz Bornmann & Jonathan Adams, 2019. "R package for producing beamplots as a preferred alternative to the h index when assessing single researchers (based on downloads from Web of Science)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 925-927, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:120:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03147-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03147-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03147-3
    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/s11192-019-03147-3?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 & Werner Marx, 2014. "Distributions instead of single numbers: Percentiles and beam plots for the assessment of single researchers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(1), pages 206-208, January.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2018. "Plots for visualizing paper impact and journal impact of single researchers in a single graph," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 385-394, April.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    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. Ramani, Ravi S. & Aguinis, Herman & Coyle-Shapiro, Jacqueline A.M., 2022. "Defining, measuring, and rewarding scholarly impact: mind the level of analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117286, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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. Lutz Bornmann & Richard Williams, 2020. "An evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact, and a proposal for making them better," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1457-1478, August.
    2. Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2018. "The bibliometric quotient (BQ), or how to measure a researcher’s performance capacity: A Bayesian Poisson Rasch model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1282-1295.
    3. Rojko, Katarina & Lužar, Borut, 2022. "Scientific performance across research disciplines: Trends and differences in the case of Slovenia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    4. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2018. "Plots for visualizing paper impact and journal impact of single researchers in a single graph," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 385-394, April.
    5. Mario Pagliaro, 2021. "Purposeful Evaluation of Scholarship in the Open Science Era," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, February.
    6. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    7. Zsolt Kohus & Márton Demeter & László Kun & Eszter Lukács & Katalin Czakó & Gyula Péter Szigeti, 2022. "A Study of the Relation between Byline Positions of Affiliated/Non-Affiliated Authors and the Scientific Impact of European Universities in Times Higher Education World University Rankings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-14, October.
    8. Albarrán, Pedro & Herrero, Carmen & Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Villar, Antonio, 2017. "The Herrero-Villar approach to citation impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 625-640.
    9. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    10. Brito, Ricardo & Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso, 2019. "Evaluating research and researchers by the journal impact factor: Is it better than coin flipping?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 314-324.
    11. Hamdi A. Al-Jamimi & Galal M. BinMakhashen & Lutz Bornmann & Yousif Ahmed Al Wajih, 2023. "Saudi Arabia research: academic insights and trend analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5595-5627, October.
    12. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Percentile and stochastic-based approach to the comparison of the number of citations of articles indexed in different bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 223-252, April.
    13. Weishu Liu & Guangyuan Hu & Mengdi Gu, 2016. "The probability of publishing in first-quartile journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1273-1276, March.
    14. Lutz Bornmann & Julian N. Marewski, 2019. "Heuristics as conceptual lens for understanding and studying the usage of bibliometrics in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 419-459, August.
    15. Maričić Milica & Bulajić Milica & Radojičić Zoran & Jeremić Veljko, 2016. "Multivariate approach to imposing additional constraints on the Benefit-of-the-Doubt model: The case of QS World University Rankings by Subject," Croatian Review of Economic, Business and Social Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 2(1), pages 1-14, September.
    16. Jessie S. Barrot, 2017. "Research impact and productivity of Southeast Asian countries in language and linguistics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 1-15, January.
    17. Péter Vinkler, 2017. "The size and impact of the elite set of publications in scientometric assessments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 163-177, January.
    18. David A. Pendlebury, 2019. "Charting a path between the simple and the false and the complex and unusable: Review of Henk F. Moed, Applied Evaluative Informetrics [in the series Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Scientifi," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 549-560, April.
    19. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 203-216.
    20. Bornmann, Lutz & Ganser, Christian & Tekles, Alexander, 2022. "Simulation of the h index use at university departments within the bibliometrics-based heuristics framework: Can the indicator be used to compare individual researchers?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).

    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:120:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03147-3. 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.