IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i4d10.1007_s11192-020-03841-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of publications by the part-set method

Author

Listed:
  • Péter Vinkler

    (Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

Several scientists publish journal papers on more than only a single scientific field or subfield. However, in evaluating the impact of publications of individuals their all scientific publications are taken into account, in general. In this paper a new method, namely the part-set method is introduced for assessing papers according to the respective fields and forming a cumulative impact index. In assessing publications of scientists, elite set indicators (e.g. h-index, g-index, top percentage indices, π-index) are preferably used recently. For obtaining elite sets, we may apply inside standards, i.e. values derived from the number of papers and citations in the set analysed, or field (outside) standards taking into account the same factors referring to all papers on the corresponding field. For model calculations some scientometricians are selected who publish papers not only on scientometrics but also on other (e.g. physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.) fields. Consequently, their papers form complex sets of which part-sets may show different bibliometric features. In this publication, the number of papers in the elite set of the scientometric part-set and their citations are presented using both inside and outside standards. No significant correlation was found between the number of papers in the elite sets obtained by inside and that calculated by field standards. The number of citations in the different elite sets calculated by both inside and outside standards however, significantly correlates with each other. The presented model indicates that the sum of h-index of two part-sets derived from a common complex (total) set can be equal to or higher than the h-index of the corresponding complex set. In contrast, the sum of π-index of two part-sets can be higher or lower than or equal to the π-index of the parent complex set. The model reveals that the maximum value of the sum of h-index of two part-sets belonging to the same complex set can be two times the h-index of the corresponding complex set. In evaluating total scientific impact (e.g. life-work) of publications of scientists who are active in several fields, the application of sum (or weighted sum) of the pertinent impact indices (e.g. h or π-index) obtained for the individual fields separately may be recommended instead of calculating the impact of the total set.

Suggested Citation

  • Péter Vinkler, 2021. "Evaluation of publications by the part-set method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2737-2757, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03841-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03841-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03841-7
    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/s11192-020-03841-7?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. Péter Vinkler, 2011. "Application of the distribution of citations among publications in scientometric evaluations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1963-1978, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Schreiber, M. & Malesios, C.C. & Psarakis, S., 2012. "Exploratory factor analysis for the Hirsch index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-358.
    5. Péter Vinkler, 2019. "Core journals and elite subsets in scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 241-259, October.
    6. Juan E. Iglesias & Carlos Pecharromán, 2007. "Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(3), pages 303-320, December.
    7. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Schubert, András & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2007. "A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 179-184.
    10. Péter Vinkler, 2011. "Application of the distribution of citations among publications in scientometric evaluations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1963-1978, October.
    11. Péter Vinkler, 2017. "Core indicators and professional recognition of scientometricians," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(1), pages 234-242, 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. Gangan Prathap, 2021. "Letter to the editor: Additive rules for h-index for the part-set method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5369-5371, June.
    2. Péter Vinkler, 2023. "Impact of the number and rank of coauthors on h-index and π-index. The part-impact method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2349-2369, April.

    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. Péter Vinkler, 2019. "Core journals and elite subsets in scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 241-259, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Péter Vinkler, 2023. "Impact of the number and rank of coauthors on h-index and π-index. The part-impact method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2349-2369, April.
    4. Sidiropoulos, A. & Gogoglou, A. & Katsaros, D. & Manolopoulos, Y., 2016. "Gazing at the skyline for star scientists," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 789-813.
    5. Petr Praus, 2019. "High-ranked citations percentage as an indicator of publications quality," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 319-329, July.
    6. Péter Vinkler, 2012. "The Garfield impact factor, one of the fundamental indicators in scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 471-483, August.
    7. Petr Praus, 2020. "HCR for assessment of scientific journals in chemistry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1237-1242, February.
    8. Maziar Montazerian & Edgar Dutra Zanotto & Hellmut Eckert, 2019. "A new parameter for (normalized) evaluation of H-index: countries as a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1065-1078, March.
    9. Georgios Stoupas & Antonis Sidiropoulos & Antonia Gogoglou & Dimitrios Katsaros & Yannis Manolopoulos, 2018. "Rainbow ranking: an adaptable, multidimensional ranking method for publication sets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 147-160, July.
    10. William Cabos & Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Exploring the Hjif-Index, an Analogue to the H-Like Index for Journal Impact Factors," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-11, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Edgar D. Zanotto & Vinicius Carvalho, 2021. "Article age- and field-normalized tools to evaluate scientific impact and momentum," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2865-2883, April.
    13. Maziar Montazerian & Edgar Dutra Zanotto & Hellmut Eckert, 2020. "Prolificacy and visibility versus reputation in the hard sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 207-221, April.
    14. Wei, Shelia X. & Tong, Tong & Rousseau, Ronald & Wang, Wanru & Ye, Fred Y., 2022. "Relations among the h-, g-, ψ-, and p-index and offset-ability," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    15. Gangan Prathap, 2019. "Letter to the editor: Revisiting the h-index and the p-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1829-1833, December.
    16. Mingyang Wang & Shijia Jiao & Kah-Hin Chai & Guangsheng Chen, 2019. "Building journal’s long-term impact: using indicators detected from the sustained active articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 261-283, October.
    17. Lucio Bertoli-Barsotti & Tommaso Lando, 2017. "A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1415-1448, June.
    18. Vinkler, Péter, 2013. "Would it be possible to increase the Hirsch-index, π-index or CDS-index by increasing the number of publications or citations only by unity?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 72-83.
    19. Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "An evaluation of impacts in “Nanoscience & nanotechnology”: steps towards standards for citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 35-55, January.
    20. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Galetto, Maurizio & Maisano, Domenico & Mastrogiacomo, Luca, 2013. "An informetric model for the success-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 109-116.

    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:4:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03841-7. 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.