A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health in Web of Science and Google Scholar

Scientometrics

Volumn 104, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 873-906

  Wildgaard, Lorna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Arithmetic mean; Author level bibliometrics; Bibliometric evaluation; Harmonic mean; Indicator properties; Ranking

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938747991     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1608-4     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Alonso, S., Cabreriazo, F., & Herrera-Viedma, F. (2009). H-index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics,3(4), 273–289.
2. Alonso, S., Cabreriazo, F., & Herrera-Viedma, F. (2010). hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g-indices. Scientometrics,82(2), 391–400.
3. Altman, D. (2005). Standard deviations and standard errors. British Medical Journal,331(7521), 903.
4. Archambault, E., & Gagné, E. V. (2004). The Use of Bibliometrics in Social Sciences and Humanities (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, SSHRCC), Montreal: Science Metrix. http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_2004_008_SSHRC_Bibliometrics_Social_Science.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2015.
5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics,74(2), 257–271.
6. Berk, R. A., & Freedman, D. A. (2003). Statistical assumptions as empirical commitments. In T. G. Blomberg & S. Cohen (Eds.), Punishment and social control (pp. 235–254). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
7. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2011). The h-index as a research performance indicator. European Science Editing,37(3), 77–80.
8. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2013). Evaluating individual researchers’ performance. Euorpean Science Editing,39(2), 30–40.
9. Cabrerizo, F. J., Alonso, S., Herrera-Viedmac, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). Q2-index: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the hirsch core. Journal of Informetrics,4(1), 23–28.
10. Connor, J. (2011). Google scholar citations open to all. Resource document. http://googlescholar.blogspot.dk/2011/11/google-scholar-citations-open-to-all.html. Accessed 30 March 2015.
11. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics,1(3), 193–203.
12. Courtault, J. M., & Hayek, N. (2008). On the robustness of the h-index: A mathematical approach. Economics Bulletin,3(78), 1–9.
13. De Battisti, F., & Salini, S. (2012). Robust analysis of bibliometric data. Statistical Methods and Applications,22(2), 269–283.
14. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics,69(1), 131–152.
15. ESO. (2011). Some statistics on recent job hires in Astronomy: Who is getting the jobs and how do you compare? Science News. Resource document. https://www.eso.org/wiki/pub/Science/ScienceNewsLetter/ScienceNews-May-Jun2011.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2015.
16. Farhadi, F., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Chadegani, A. A., Farhabi, M., Fooladi, M., et al. (2013). Does it matter which citation tool is used to compare the h-index of a group of highly cited researchers? Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences,7(4), 198–202.
17. Fiorenzo, F., Domenico, M., & Luca, M. (2013). The effect of dirty data on h-index calculation. Scientometrics,95(3), 1179–1188.
18. Franceschet, M. (2010). A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics,83(1), 243–258.
19. Franceschini, F., & Maisano, D. (2011). Criticism on the hg.index. Scientometrics,86(2), 339–346.
20. Freedman, D. A., Pisani, R., & Purves, R. (2007). Statistics (4th ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
21. Gorard, S. (2003). Quantitative methods in social science: the role of numbers made easy. London: Continuum.
22. Gorard, S. (2006). Towards judgement-based statistical analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education,27(1), 67–80.
23. Gratton, R. (2014). Evaluation of Italian atronomical production: 2010–2012. Resource document. arXiv: arXiv:1402.4080v1 [astro-ph.IM]. Accessed 30 March 2015.
24. Hagen, N. T. (2008). Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004021.
25. Harzing, A. (2008). Google Scholar—A new data source for citation analysis. Resource document, http://www.harzing.com/pop_gs.htm. Accessed 30 March 2015.
26. Harzing, A. (2012). Publish or Perish user’s manual. Resource document, http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm#metrics. Accessed 30 March 2015.
27. Harzing, A. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics,98(1), 565–575.
28. Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: Possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance: Governance of research organizations (pp. 121–139). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
29. Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS),102(46), 16569–16572.
30. Jacsó, P. (2005). As we may search? Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science,89(9), 1537–1547.
31. Jascó, P. (2008). The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databases. Online Information Review,32(2), 266–283.
32. Kamphuis, P., & van der Kruit, P. C. (2010). Citations and impact of Dutch astronomy. Resource document arXiv:1011.5311v1 [astro-ph.IM]. Accessed 30 March 2015.
33. Kendall, M. G. (1955). Rank correlation methods. New York: Hafner Publishing Co.
34. Kosmoloulos, C., & Pumain, D. (2014). Citation, citation, citation: Bibliometrics, the web and the Social Sciences and Humanities. Resource document, Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography. http://www.cybergeo.eu/index15463.html. Accessed 30 March 2015.
35. Kosmulski, M. (2006). A new type Hirsch-index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter,2(3), 4–6.
36. Lancho-Barrentes, B., & Guerrero, V. P. (2010). What lies behind the averages and significance of citation indicators in different disciplines? Journal of Information Science,36(3), 371–382.
37. ®, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries,7(3), 196–217.
38. Meera, B. M., & Manjunath, M., (2012). h-index of astrophysicists at raman research institute: performance of different calculators, Working Group on Libraries, IAU Division XII Commission 5, In L. Utley (Ed.) Special session 15: Data-intensive astronomy, Beijing, China, 23-24 August 2012. http://iau-commission5.wikispaces.com/LibWG+Beijing+2012. Accessed 30 March 2015.
39. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(13), 2105–2125.
40. Miller, C. W., (2006). Superiority of the h-index over the impact factor for physics. Resource document, arXiv: physics/0608183 [physics.soc-ph]. Accessed 30 March 2015.
41. Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy,6(2), 127–141.
42. Panaretos, J., & Malesios, C. (2009). Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indicators. Scientometrics,. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2174-9.
43. Patel, V. M., Ashrafian, H., Almoudaris, A., Makanjuola, J., Bucciarelli-Ducci, C., Darzi, A., et al. (2013). Measuring academic research performance for healthcare researchers with the h index: Which search tool should be used? Medical Principles and Practice,22(2), 178–183.
44. Redner, S. (2010). On the meaning of the h-index. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2010/03/L03005.
45. Roediger, H. L. (2006). The h index in Science: A new measure of scholarly contribution. Resource document, APS Observer: The Academic Observer. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2006/april-06/the-h-index-in-science-a-new-measure-of-scholarly-contribution.html. Accessed 30 March 2015.
46. Schneider, J. W. (2013). Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments. Journal of Informetrics,7(1), 50–62.
47. Schneider, J. W. (2015). Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: The basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations. Scientometrics,102(1), 411–432.
48. Schreiber, M. (2013a). A case study of the arbitrariness of the h-index and the highly-cited-publications indicator. Journal of Informetrics,7(2), 379–387.
49. Schreiber, M. (2013b). How to derive an advantage from the arbitrariness of the g-index. Journal of Informetrics,7(2), 555–561.
50. Schreiber, M., Malesios, C. C., & Psarakis, S. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis for the hirsch-index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators. Journal of Informetrics,6(3), 347–358.
51. Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2007). Generalized hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics,72(2), 253–280.
52. Smith, A. G. (2008). Benchmarking Google Scholar with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment exercise. Scientometrics,74(2), 309–316.
53. Testa, J. (2012). The Thomson Reuters Journal Selection Process. Resource document, http://wokinfo.com/essays/journal-selection-process/. Accessed 30 March 2015.
54. Tol, R. S. J. (2009). Of the H-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists. Scientometrics,80(2), 317–324.
55. van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Testing the validity of the hirsch-index for research assessment purposes. Research Evaluation,17(2), 157–160.
56. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics,67(3), 491–502.
57. Vanclay, J. K. (2007). On the robustness of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(10), 1547–1550.
58. Waltman, L., & Schreiber, M. (2013). On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(2), 372–379.
59. Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(2), 406–415.
60. Wildgaard, L., Schneider, J. W., & Larsen, B. (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics,101(1), 125–158.
61. Wilson, V. (2007). A content analysis of Google Scholar: Coverage varies by discipline and by database. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice,2(1), 134–136.
62. Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2006). Citation analysis: A comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science., 2006. In 69th annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST), Austin (US), 3–8 November 2006. http://eprints.rclis.org/8605/1/Yang_citation.pdf. Accessed 9 April 2015.
63. Zhang, C. (2009). The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE,4(5), e5429.