IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i7d10.1007_s11192-024-05088-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How co-authorship affects the H-index?

Author

Listed:
  • Yannis Tzitzikas

    (Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas (FORTH)
    University of Crete)

  • Giorgos Dovas

    (University of Crete)

Abstract

H-Index is a widely used metric for measuring scientific output. In this paper we showcase the weakness of this index as regards co-authorship. By ignoring the number of co-authors, each author gets the full credit of a joint work, something that is not fair for evaluation purposes. For this purpose we report the results of simulation scenarios that demonstrate the impact that co-authorship can have. To tackle this weakness, and achieve a more fair evaluation, we propose a few simple variations of H-index that consider the number of co-authors, as well as the active time period of a researcher. In particular we propose using HI/co and HI/(coy), two metrics that are simple to understand and compute, and thus they are convenient for decision making. The simulation shows that they can tackle well co-authorship. Subsequently we report measurements over real data of researchers coming from five universities (Cambridge, Crete, Harvard, Oxford and Ziauddin), as well as other datasets, that reveal big variations in the average number of co-authors. In total, we analyzed 526 authors, having in total more than 127 thousands publications, and 16.7 million citations. These measurements revealed big variations of the number of co-authors. Consequently, by including the number of co-authors in the measures for scientific output (e.g. through the proposed HI/co) we get rankings that differ significantly from the rankings obtained by citations, or by the plain H-Index. The normalized Kendall’s tau distance of these rankings ranged from 0.28 to 0.46, which is quite high.

Suggested Citation

  • Yannis Tzitzikas & Giorgos Dovas, 2024. "How co-authorship affects the H-index?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4437-4469, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05088-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05088-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05088-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/s11192-024-05088-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. Christoph Bartneck & Servaas Kokkelmans, 2011. "Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 85-98, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    4. C. Malesios & S. Psarakis, 2014. "Comparison of the h-index for different fields of research using bootstrap methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 521-545, January.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2007. "What do we know about the h index?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(9), pages 1381-1385, July.
    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. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.
    2. Ilaria Cataldo & Dora Novotny & Alessandro Carollo & Gianluca Esposito, 2023. "Mental Health in the Post-Lockdown Scenario: A Scientometric Investigation of the Main Thematic Trends of Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(13), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Hernández-Escobedo, Quetzalcoatl & Perea-Moreno, Alberto-Jesús & Manzano-Agugliaro, Francisco, 2018. "Wind energy research in Mexico," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 719-729.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Nisar Ali & Zahid Halim & Syed Fawad Hussain, 2023. "An artificial intelligence-based framework for data-driven categorization of computer scientists: a case study of world’s Top 10 computing departments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1513-1545, March.
    7. J. E. Hirsch, 2019. "hα: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific leadership," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 673-686, February.
    8. Ameni Kacem & Justin W. Flatt & Philipp Mayr, 2020. "Tracking self-citations in academic publishing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1157-1165, May.
    9. Lei Li & Yan Wang & Guanfeng Liu & Meng Wang & Xindong Wu, 2015. "Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-28, June.
    10. 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).
    11. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    12. Tagiew, Rustam & Ignatov, Dmitry I., 2017. "Behavior Mining in h-index Ranking Game," MPRA Paper 82795, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. 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.
    15. Justin W. Flatt & Alessandro Blasimme & Effy Vayena, 2017. "Improving the Measurement of Scientific Success by Reporting a Self-Citation Index," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-6, August.
    16. Maurice Poirrier & Sebastián Moreno & Gonzalo Huerta-Cánepa, 2021. "Robust h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 1969-1981, March.
    17. Mila Cascajares & Alfredo Alcayde & Esther Salmerón-Manzano & Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro, 2021. "The Bibliometric Literature on Scopus and WoS: The Medicine and Environmental Sciences Categories as Case of Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-31, May.
    18. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2012. "Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 37-49, April.
    19. Antonio Fernandez-Cano & Inés M. Fernández-Guerrero, 2017. "A multivariate model for evaluating emergency medicine journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 991-1003, February.
    20. Rabishankar Giri & Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri, 2021. "Ranking journals through the lens of active visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2189-2208, March.

    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:129:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05088-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.