Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020200564 = product of:
  0.040401127 = sum of:
    0.040401127 = product of:
      0.080802254 = sum of:
        0.080802254 = weight(_text_:i in 1113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080802254 = score(doc=1113,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.4714662 = fieldWeight in 1113, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using a very small sample of 8 data sets it was recently shown by De Visscher (2011) that the g-index is very close to the square root of the total number of citations. It was argued that there is no bibliometrically meaningful difference. Using another somewhat larger empirical sample of 26 data sets I show that the difference may be larger and I argue in favor of the g-index.

0.015462836 = product of:
  0.030925673 = sum of:
    0.030925673 = product of:
      0.061851345 = sum of:
        0.061851345 = weight(_text_:i in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061851345 = score(doc=1968,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.36089116 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. To take into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations, L. Egghe (2006a) proposed the g-index as an improvement of the h-index. I have worked out 26 practical cases of physicists from the Institute of Physics at Chemnitz University of Technology, and compare the h and g values in this study. It is demonstrated that the g-index discriminates better between different citation patterns. This also can be achieved by evaluating B.H. Jin's (2006) A-index, which reflects the average number of citations in the h-core, and interpreting it in conjunction with the h-index. h and A can be combined into the R-index to measure the h-core's citation intensity. I also have determined the A and R values for the 26 datasets. For a better comparison, I utilize interpolated indices. The correlations between the various indices as well as with the total number of papers and the highest citation counts are discussed. The largest Pearson correlation coefficient is found between g and R. Although the correlation between g and h is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either h or g.

0.014283955 = product of:
  0.02856791 = sum of:
    0.02856791 = product of:
      0.05713582 = sum of:
        0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 1563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05713582 = score(doc=1563,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 1563, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1563)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The h-index has been shown to increase in many cases mostly because of citations to rather old publications. This inertia can be circumvented by restricting the evaluation to a citation time window. Here I report results of an empirical study analyzing the evolution of the thus defined timed h-index in dependence on the length of the citation time window.

0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

J.E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers, that received at least h citations. This so-called Hirsch index can be easily modified to take multiple coauthorship into account by counting the papers fractionally according to (the inverse of) the number of authors. I have worked out 26 empirical cases of physicists to illustrate the effect of this modification. Although the correlation between the original and the modified Hirsch index is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either the original or the modified index.

0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 2262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=2262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The predictive power of the h-index has been shown to depend on citations to rather old publications. This has raised doubts about its usefulness for predicting future scientific achievements. Here, I investigate a variant that considers only recent publications and is therefore more useful in academic hiring processes and for the allocation of research resources. It is simply defined in analogy to the usual h-index, but takes into account only publications from recent years, and it can easily be determined from the ISI Web of Knowledge.

0.0123128155 = product of:
  0.024625631 = sum of:
    0.024625631 = product of:
      0.049251262 = sum of:
        0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049251262 = score(doc=675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 675, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2013 19:52:05

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 3125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=3125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 3125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

L. Egghe ([2008]) studied the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index, counting the authorship of cited articles in a fractional way. But his definition of the gF-index for the case that the article count is fractionalized yielded values that were close to or even larger than the original g-index. Here I propose an alternative definition by which the g-index is modified in such a way that the resulting gm-index is always smaller than the original g-index. Based on the interpretation of the g-index as the highest number of articles of a scientist that received on average g or more citations, in the specification of the new gm-index the articles are counted fractionally not only for the rank but also for the average.