Are there really two types of h index variants? a validation study by using molecular life sciences data

Research Evaluation

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 185-190

  Bornmann, Lutz ^a   Mutz, Rüdiger ^a   Daniel, Hans Dieter ^b   Wallon, Gerlind ^c   Ledin, Anna ^d  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c Europ Molec Biology Organisation   (Germany)

^d ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77449146354     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820209X466883     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Antonakis, J and R Lalive 2008. Quantifying scholarly impact: IQp versus the Hirsch h. Journal of the American Society for Infor-mation Science and Technology, 59(6), 956-969.
2. Ball, P. 2007. Achievement index climbs the ranks. Nature, 448(7155), 737.
3. Bornmann, L and H-D Daniel 2007. What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381-1385.
4. Bornmann, L and H-D Daniel 2009. The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research perform-ance? EMBO Reports, 10(1), 2-6.
5. Bornmann, L, R Mutz and H-D Daniel 2008a. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A compari-son of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830-837.
6. Bornmann, L, G Wallon and A Ledin 2008b. Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investi-gation of the selection process for two European Molecular Bi-ology Organization programmes. PLoS One, 3(10), e3480.
7. Bornmann, L, G Wallon and A Ledin 2008c. Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data. Research Evaluation, 17(2), June, 149-156.
8. Bornmann, L, W Marx and H Schier 2009a. Hirsch-type index values for organic chemistry journals: a comparison of new metrics with the Journal Impact Factor. European Journal of Organic Chemistry, 2009(10), 1471-1476.
9. Bornmann, L, R Mutz and H-D Daniel 2009b. Do we need the h index and its variants besides standard bibliometric meas-ures? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1286-1289.
10. Burrell, Q L 2009. On Hirsch's h, Egghe's g and Kosmulski's h(2). Scientometrics, 79(1), 79-91.
11. Curran, P J, S G West and J F Finch 1996. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirma-tory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16-29.
12. Egghe, L 2005a. Power Laws in the Information Production Process: Lotkaian Informetrics. Kidlington, UK: Elsevier Academic Press.
13. Egghe, L 2005b. The power of power laws and an interpretation of lotkaian informetric systems as self-similar fractals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(7), 669-675.
14. Egghe, L 2006. An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 8-9.
15. Egghe, L and R Rousseau 2008. An h-index weighted by citation impact. Information Processing and Management, 44(2), 770-780.
16. Harnad, S 2008. Validating research performance metrics against peer rankings. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 103-107.
17. Hirsch, J E 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572.
18. Hirsch, J E 2007. Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(49), 19193-19198.
19. Jin, B. 2006. h-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus, 1(1), 8-9.
20. Jin, B, L Liang, R Rousseau and L Egghe 2007. The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855-863.
21. Kosmulski, M 2006. A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(3), 4-6.
22. Kosmulski, M 2007. MAXPROD - a new index for assessment of the scientific output of an individual, and a comparison. Cy-bermetrics, 11.
23. Ledin, A, L Bornmann, F Gannon and G Wallon 2007. A persis-tent problem: traditional gender roles hold back female scien-tists. EMBO Reports, 8(11), 982-987.
24. Leydesdorff, L 2009. How are new citation-based journal indica-tors adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the Ameri-can Society for Information Science and Technology.
25. Muthén, L K and B O Muthén 1998-2007. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Muthén & Muthén.
26. Schreiber, M. 2008a. A modification of the h-index: the hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 211-216.
27. Schreiber, M 2008b. To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 10(4), 040201.
28. Sechrest, L 1963. Incremental validity - a recommendation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23(1), 153-158.
29. Timm, N. H. 2002. Applied multivariate analysis, New York, NY, USA, Springer.
30. Van Raan, A F J 2004. Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: the Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems, eds. H F Moed, W Glänzel and U. Schmoch, pp. 19-50. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
31. Velicer, W F and D N Jackson 1990. Component analysis versus common factor analysis: some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 1-28.