The Hirsch-index: A simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists

Netherlands Heart Journal

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 145-154

  Opthof, T ^a,b   Wilde, A A M ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Clinical cardiology; Grant proposals; Hirsch index; Impact factor; Peer review

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRICS; CARDIOLOGIST; CARDIOLOGY; CITATION ANALYSIS; HIRSCH INDEX; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; JOB PERFORMANCE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NETHERLANDS; PEER REVIEW; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

EID: 70349287630     PISSN: 15685888     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03086237     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Van der Heyden MAG, Derks van de Ven T, Opthof T. Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction. Eur Heart J 2009;17:25-29
2. Ioannidis JPA. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005;294:218-228 (Pubitemid 41043792)
3. Cole S. Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists. Trends Biochem Sci 1989;14:9-13.
4. Opthof T. Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc Res 1997;33:1-7.
5. MacRoberts MH, MacRoberts BR. Citation analysis and the science policy arena. Trends Biochem Sci 1989;14:8-12.
6. Opthof T, Coronel R. The most frequently cited papers of Cardiovasc Res (1967-1998). Cardiovasc Res 2000;45:3-5.
7. Seglen PO. From bad to worse: evaluation by Journal Impact. Trends Biochem Sci 1989;14:326-327
8. Adler R, Ewing J, Taylor P. Joint Committee on Quantitative Assessment of Research. Citation Statistics, 2008. http:// www.mathunion.org/Publications/ Report/CitationStatistics.
9. Leydesdorff L. Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluations. JASIS 2008;59:278-287 (Pubitemid 351205033)
10. Opthof T, Coronel R, Piper HM. Impact factors: no totum pro parte by skewness of citation. Cardiovasc Res 2004;61:201-203
11. Anonymus. Advice of the Research Council on the evaluation of the AMC research 2008. Internal report, 2009.
12. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102:16569-16572
13. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. JASIS 2008;59:830-837
14. Ball P. Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature 2005; 436:900.
15. Opthof T, Coronel R. The impact factor of leading cardiovascular journals: where is your paper best cited ? Neth Heart J 2002; 10:198-202.
16. Liang L. h-index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics 2006;69:153-159 (Pubitemid 44386716)
17. Jin B. The AR-index: complementing the h-index. ISSI Newsletter 2007;3:6.
18. Van Raan AJF. Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: research group indicator distributions and correlations. JASIST 2006;57:408-430
19. Opthof T, Coronel R, Janse MJ. The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias. Cardiovasc Res 2002;56:339-346 (Pubitemid 35351553)
20. Moed HF, Burger WJM, Frankfort JG, Van Raan AFJ. A comparative study of bibliometric past performance analysis and peer judgement. Scientometrics 1985;8:149-159
21. Moed HF. Citation analysis in research evaluation. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005, pp: 229-257
22. Van Raan AJF. Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics 2006;67:491-502.
23. Van den Besselaar P, Leydesdorff L. Past performance of successful grant applications. The Hague. Rathenau Institute. SciSA Report 0704, 2007.
24. Cichetti DV. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: a cross-disciplinary investigation. Behav Brain Sci 1991;14:119-186