-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: What do we know about the h index? (2007)
0.02
0.02479351 = product of:
0.04958702 = sum of:
0.04958702 = product of:
0.074380524 = sum of:
0.06163711 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06163711 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.54347324 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.012743411 = weight(_text_:d in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012743411 = score(doc=477,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.14693572 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Jorge Hirsch recently proposed the h index to quantify the research output of individual scientists. The new index has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific community. The claim that the h index in a single number provides a good representation of the scientific lifetime achievement of a scientist as well as the (supposed) simple calculation of the h index using common literature databases lead to the danger of improper use of the index. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the h index and summarize the studies on the convergent validity of this index. We also introduce corrections and complements as well as single-number alternatives to the h index.
- Object
- H-Index
-
Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H.D.: Do we need the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures? (2009)
0.01
0.014636151 = product of:
0.029272301 = sum of:
0.029272301 = product of:
0.04390845 = sum of:
0.034806013 = weight(_text_:h in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034806013 = score(doc=2861,freq=10.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.30689526 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
0.009102437 = weight(_text_:d in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009102437 = score(doc=2861,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 2861, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2861)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs number of publications (for the quantity dimension) and total citation counts (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between number of publications and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between total citation counts and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.
- Object
- h-Index
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Multiple publication on a single research study: does it pay? : The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine (2007)
0.01
0.00822272 = product of:
0.01644544 = sum of:
0.01644544 = product of:
0.024668159 = sum of:
0.015565722 = weight(_text_:h in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015565722 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.009102437 = weight(_text_:d in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009102437 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Universality of citation distributions : a validation of Radicchi et al.'s relative indicator cf = c/c0 at the micro level using data from chemistry (2009)
0.01
0.00822272 = product of:
0.01644544 = sum of:
0.01644544 = product of:
0.024668159 = sum of:
0.015565722 = weight(_text_:h in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015565722 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.009102437 = weight(_text_:d in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009102437 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.104954086 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H.-D.: Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review : a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere (2008)
0.01
0.0065781754 = product of:
0.013156351 = sum of:
0.013156351 = product of:
0.019734526 = sum of:
0.012452577 = weight(_text_:h in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012452577 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
0.113413334 = queryWeight, product of:
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.0072819493 = weight(_text_:d in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0072819493 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0867278 = queryWeight, product of:
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.045649286 = queryNorm
0.08396327 = fieldWeight in 2381, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.899872 = idf(docFreq=17979, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2381)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
