Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015467559 = product of:
  0.030935118 = sum of:
    0.030935118 = product of:
      0.061870236 = sum of:
        0.061870236 = weight(_text_:h in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061870236 = score(doc=477,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.008734414 = product of:
  0.017468829 = sum of:
    0.017468829 = product of:
      0.034937657 = sum of:
        0.034937657 = weight(_text_:h in 1608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034937657 = score(doc=1608,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = queryNorm
            0.30689526 = fieldWeight in 1608, 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=1608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this study, we examined empirical results on the h index and its most important variants in order to determine whether the variants developed are associated with an incremental contribution for evaluation purposes. The results of a factor analysis using bibliographic data on postdoctoral researchers in biomedicine indicate that regarding the h index and its variants, we are dealing with two types of indices that load on one factor each. One type describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and gives the number of papers in that core. The other type of indices describes the impact of the papers in the core. Because an index for evaluative purposes is a useful yardstick for comparison among scientists if the index corresponds strongly with peer assessments, we calculated a logistic regression analysis with the two factors resulting from the factor analysis as independent variables and peer assessment of the postdoctoral researchers as the dependent variable. The results of the regression analysis show that peer assessments can be predicted better using the factor impact of the productive core than using the factor quantity of the productive core.

0.008734414 = product of:
  0.017468829 = sum of:
    0.017468829 = product of:
      0.034937657 = sum of:
        0.034937657 = weight(_text_:h in 2861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034937657 = score(doc=2861,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.0039061487 = product of:
  0.0078122974 = sum of:
    0.0078122974 = product of:
      0.015624595 = sum of:
        0.015624595 = weight(_text_:h in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015624595 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0039061487 = product of:
  0.0078122974 = sum of:
    0.0078122974 = product of:
      0.015624595 = sum of:
        0.015624595 = weight(_text_:h in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015624595 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0031249188 = product of:
  0.0062498376 = sum of:
    0.0062498376 = product of:
      0.012499675 = sum of:
        0.012499675 = weight(_text_:h in 2381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012499675 = score(doc=2381,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113842286 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045821942 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)