IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i3d10.1007_s11192-020-03857-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robust h-index

Author

Listed:
  • Maurice Poirrier

    (Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez)

  • Sebastián Moreno

    (Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez)

  • Gonzalo Huerta-Cánepa

    (Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez)

Abstract

The h-index is the most used measurement of impact for researchers. Sites such as Web of Science, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, and Scopus leverage it to show and compare the impact of authors. The h-index can be described in simple terms: it is the highest h for which an authors has h papers with the number of cites more or equal than h. Unfortunately, some researchers, in order to increase their productivity artificially, manipulate their h-index using different techniques such as self-citation. Even though it is relatively simple to discard self-citations, every day appears more sophisticated methods to artificially increase this index. One of these methods is collaborative citations, in which a researcher A cites indiscriminately another researcher B, with whom it has a previous collaboration, increasing her/his h-index. This work presents a new robust generalization of the h-index called rh-index that minimizes the impact of new collaborative citations, maintaining the importance of their citations previous to their collaborative work. To demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed index, we analyze its effect over 600 Chilean researchers. Our results show that, while some of the most cited researchers were barely affected, demonstrating their robustness, another group of authors show a substantial reduction in comparison to their original h-index.

Suggested Citation

  • Maurice Poirrier & Sebastián Moreno & Gonzalo Huerta-Cánepa, 2021. "Robust h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 1969-1981, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03857-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03857-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03857-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/s11192-020-03857-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. Günter Krampen & Ralf Becker & Ute Wahner & Leo Montada, 2007. "On the validity of citation counting in science evaluation: Content analyses of references and citations in psychological publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(2), pages 191-202, May.
    2. Christoph Bartneck & Servaas Kokkelmans, 2011. "Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 85-98, April.
    3. Leo Egghe, 2006. "Theory and practise of the g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 131-152, October.
    4. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2007. "On the robustness of the h‐index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(10), pages 1547-1550, August.
    5. 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.
    6. J. E. Hirsch, 2010. "An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 741-754, December.
    7. Seeber, Marco & Cattaneo, Mattia & Meoli, Michele & Malighetti, Paolo, 2019. "Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 478-491.
    8. 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.
    9. Alireza Abbasi & Jörn Altmann & Junseok Hwang, 2010. "Evaluating scholars based on their academic collaboration activities: two indices, the RC-index and the CC-index, for quantifying collaboration activities of researchers and scientific communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 1-13, April.
    10. Costas, Rodrigo & Bordons, María, 2007. "The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 193-203.
    11. Cormode, Graham & Ma, Qiang & Muthukrishnan, S. & Thompson, Brian, 2013. "Socializing the h-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 718-721.
    12. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    13. Dag W. Aksnes, 2003. "A macro study of self-citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(2), pages 235-246, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    16. Burrell, Quentin L., 2007. "Hirsch's h-index: A stochastic model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 16-25.
    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. Chen, Meiqian & Guo, Zhaoxia & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique, 2021. "Citations optimal growth path: A tool to analyze sensitivity to citations of h-like indexes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    5. Serge Galam, 2011. "Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 365-379, October.
    6. Yu Liu & Wei Zuo & Ying Gao & Yanhong Qiao, 2013. "Comprehensive geometrical interpretation of h-type indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 605-615, August.
    7. Kuan, Chung-Huei & Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2011. "Ranking patent assignee performance by h-index and shape descriptors," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 303-312.
    8. 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.
    9. R. Álvarez & E. Cahué & J. Clemente-Gallardo & A. Ferrer & D. Íñiguez & X. Mellado & A. Rivero & G. Ruiz & F. Sanz & E. Serrano & A. Tarancón & Y. Vergara, 2015. "Analysis of academic productivity based on Complex Networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 651-672, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2010. "The citation triad: An overview of a scientist's publication output based on Ferrers diagrams," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 503-511.
    12. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    13. 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.
    14. Anand Bihari & Sudhakar Tripathi & Akshay Deepak, 2021. "Iterative weighted EM and iterative weighted EM′-index for scientific assessment of scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5551-5568, July.
    15. Zhang, Lin & Thijs, Bart & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2011. "The diffusion of H-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 583-593.
    16. 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.
    17. Anand Bihari & Sudhakar Tripathi, 2018. "Year based EM-index: a new approach to evaluate the scientific impact of scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1175-1205, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Debarshi Kumar Sanyal & Sumana Dey & Partha Pratim Das, 2020. "gm-index: a new mentorship index for researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 71-102, April.
    20. Martin Szomszor & David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1119-1147, 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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03857-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.