IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i6d10.1007_s11192-022-04373-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Big fish and small ponds: why the departmental h-index should not be used to rank universities

Author

Listed:
  • O. Mryglod

    (Institute for Condensed Matter Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
    L4 Collaboration & Doctoral College for the Statistical Physics of Complex Systems)

  • Yu. Holovatch

    (Institute for Condensed Matter Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
    L4 Collaboration & Doctoral College for the Statistical Physics of Complex Systems
    Coventry University)

  • R. Kenna

    (L4 Collaboration & Doctoral College for the Statistical Physics of Complex Systems
    Coventry University)

Abstract

The size-dependent nature of the so-called group or departmental h-index is reconsidered in this paper. While the influence of unit size on such collective measures was already demonstrated a decade ago, institutional ratings based on this metric can still be found and still impact on the reputations and funding of many research institutions. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the fallacy of this approach to collective research-quality assessment in a simple way, focusing on the h-index in its original form. We show that randomly reshuffling real scientometric data (varying numbers of citations) amongst institutions of varying size, while maintaining the volume of their research outputs, has little effect on their departmental h-index. This suggests that the relative position in ratings based on the collective h-index is determined not only by quality (impact) of particular research outputs but by their volume. Therefore, the application of the collective h-index in its original form is disputable as a basement for comparison at aggregated levels such as to research groups, institutions or journals. We suggest a possible remedy for this failing which is implementable in a manner that is as simple and understandable as the h-index itself.

Suggested Citation

  • O. Mryglod & Yu. Holovatch & R. Kenna, 2022. "Big fish and small ponds: why the departmental h-index should not be used to rank universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3279-3292, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04373-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04373-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04373-y
    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/s11192-022-04373-y?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. Jean-Francois Molinari & Alain Molinari, 2008. "A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(1), pages 163-174, April.
    2. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau, 2006. "An informetric model for the Hirsch-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 121-129, October.
    3. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan van Eck, 2012. "The inconsistency of the h‐index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 406-415, February.
    4. Juan A Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño-Ortín & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2012. "The Citation Merit of Scientific Publications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-9, November.
    5. Schubert, András & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2007. "A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 179-184.
    6. O. Mryglod & R. Kenna & Yu. Holovatch & B. Berche, 2013. "Absolute and specific measures of research group excellence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 115-127, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan van Eck, 2012. "The inconsistency of the h-index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 406-415, February.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2020. "Thomas theorem in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 553-555, April.
    10. Fred Y. Ye, 2009. "An investigation on mathematical models of the h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 493-498, November.
    11. R. Kenna & B. Berche, 2011. "Critical mass and the dependency of research quality on group size," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 527-540, February.
    12. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Petridis, Konstantinos & Malesios, Chrisovalantis & Arabatzis, Garyfallos & Thanassoulis, Emmanuel, 2013. "Efficiency analysis of forestry journals: Suggestions for improving journals’ quality," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 505-521.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau, 2021. "The h-index formalism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6137-6145, July.
    6. Tokmachev, Andrey M., 2023. "Hidden scales in statistics of citation indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    7. Brito, Ricardo & Navarro, Alonso Rodríguez, 2021. "The inconsistency of h-index: A mathematical analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    8. 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.
    9. Anna Tietze & Philip Hofmann, 2019. "The h-index and multi-author hm-index for individual researchers in condensed matter physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 171-185, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau, 2020. "Minimal Impact One-Dimensional Arrays," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-11, May.
    12. Perme, Maja Pohar & Stare, Janez & Žaucer, Rok & Žaucer, Matjaž, 2012. "Comparison of the citation distribution and h-index between groups of different sizes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 712-720.
    13. 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.
    14. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2014. "An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 449-477.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    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. Li Zhai & Xiangbin Yan & Bin Zhu, 2014. "The H l -index: improvement of H-index based on quality of citing papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1021-1031, February.
    19. Muzammil Tahira & Rose Alinda Alias & Aryati Bakri, 2013. "Scientometric assessment of engineering in Malaysians universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 865-879, September.
    20. Maor Weinberger & Maayan Zhitomirsky-Geffet, 2021. "Diversity of success: measuring the scholarly performance diversity of tenured professors in the Israeli academia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2931-2970, April.

    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:127:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04373-y. 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.