Visscher, A. De: What does the g-index really measure? (2011)
0.03
0.026016979 = product of:
0.052033957 = sum of:
0.052033957 = product of:
0.104067914 = sum of:
0.104067914 = weight(_text_:g in 1053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.104067914 = score(doc=1053,freq=14.0), product of:
0.1895716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.05047238 = queryNorm
0.5489636 = fieldWeight in 1053, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1053)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- It was argued recently that the g-index is a measure of a researcher's specific impact (i.e., impact per paper) as much as it is a measure of overall impact. While this is true for the productive "core" of publications, it can be argued that the g-index does not differ from the square root of the total number of citations in a bibliometrically meaningful way when the entire publication list is considered. The R-index also has a tendency to follow total impact, leaving only the A-index as a true measure of specific impact. The main difference between the g-index and the h-index is that the former penalizes consistency of impact whereas the latter rewards such consistency. It is concluded that the h-index is a better bibliometric tool than is the g-index, and that the square root of the total number of citations is a convenient measure of a researcher's overall impact.
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Visscher, A. De: Response to "remarks on the paper by a. De Visscher, 'what does the g-index really measure?' ". In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2013) no.9, S.1960-1962.
- Object
- g-index