Advertisement

A new parameter for (normalized) evaluation of H-index: countries as a case study

  • Maziar Montazerian
  • Edgar Dutra ZanottoEmail author
  • Hellmut Eckert
Article

Abstract

It is known that the H-indexes of individuals, research groups, institutions, scientific journals, and countries strongly depend on the field of study, slowly increase with the number of publications, N, and can be described by empirical power-law functions of the type H = C × Na (C and a are constants and depend on the specific field being analyzed). In this paper, we use this function and propose a new index [Montazerian–Zanotto–Eckert (MZE)], which is normalized by the number of publications and typically varies from − 1 to + 1, to characterize the relative standing of a research group, institution, or author to those of his/her peer groups. Due to the rich statistics available, as an example, here we analyzed and tested the new parameter against the citation-related performance (H-index) of countries. We found that the MZE index readily distinguishes between countries that stand above or below the average (for any given number of publications). Generally, publications of countries with a positive MZE index are more interesting or visible than the average. Analyzing publication output in this manner instead of the H-index allows for a less biased comparison between researchers, journals, universities, or countries for any particular combination of H-index and publication output.

Keywords

Bibliometrics Countries H-index MZE-index Citations Quality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, # 2013/07793-6) - CEPID/CeRTEV - for financial support of this work and the post-doctoral fellowship granted to Maziar Montazerian (# 2015/13314-9).

References

  1. Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). H-index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babić, D., Kutlača, Đ., Živković, L., Štrbac, D., & Semenčenko, D. (2016). Evaluation of the quality of scientific performance of the selected countries of Southeast Europe. Scientometrics, 106(1), 405–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Csajbok, E., Berhidi, A., Vasas, L., & Schubert, A. (2007). Hirsch-index for countries based on Essential Science Indicators data. Scientometrics, 73(1), 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., & Sacha Wunsch-Vincent, S. (Eds.). (2017). The Global Innovation Index 2017: Innovation Feeding the World. New York: Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO.Google Scholar
  6. Editorial. (2005). Not-so-deep impact. Nature, 435(7045), 1003–7431.Google Scholar
  7. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egghe, L. (2010). The Hirsch index and related impact measures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 65–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2006). An informetric model for the Hirsch index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glänzel, W. (2006). On the H-index—A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact. Scientometrics, 67(2), 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glänzel, W., & Zhang, L. (2018). Scientometric research assessment in the developing world: A tribute to Michael J. Moravcsik from the perspective of the twenty-first century. Scientometrics, 115(3), 1517–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guan, J., & Gao, X. (2008). Comparison and evaluation of Chinese research performance in the field of bioinformatics. Scientometrics, 75(2), 357–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirsch, J. E., & Buela-Casal, G. (2014). The meaning of the H-index. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14, 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharromán, C. (2007). Scaling the H-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boyack, K., & Wouters, P. F. (2016). Citation metrics: A primer on how (not) to normalize. PLoS Biology, 14(9), e1002542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacsó, P. (2009). The H-index for countries in Web of Science and Scopus. Online Information Review, 33(4), 831–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jin, B., & Rousseau, R. (2005). China’s quantitative expansion phase: Exponential growth but low impact. In Proceedings of ISSI 2005: 10th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (Vol. 1, pp. 362–370).Google Scholar
  19. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430(6997), 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meneghini, R., & Packer, A. L. (2006). Articles with authors affiliated to Brazilian institutions published from 1994 to 2003 with 100 or more citations: II—Identification of thematic nuclei of excellence in Brazilian science. Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciencias, 78(4), 855–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molinari, J. F., & Molinari, A. (2008). A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions. Scientometrics, 75, 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montazerian, M., Zanotto, E. D., & Eckert, H. (2017). Bibliometrics in glass and other sciences: A Plea for reason. International Journal of Applied Glass Science, 8(3), 352–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moravcsik, M. J. (1985). Applied scientometrics: An assessment methodology for developing countries. Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2010). The H-index: A broad review of a new bibliometric indicator. Journal of Documentation, 66(5), 681–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Panaretos, J., & Malesios, C. (2009). Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices. Scientometrics, 81(3), 635–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prathap, G. (2006). Hirsch-type indices for ranking institutions’ scientific research output. Current Science, 91(11), 1439.Google Scholar
  27. Prathap, G. (2010). An iCE map approach to evaluate performance and efficiency of scientific production of countries. Scientometrics, 85, 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Redner, S. (1998). How popular is your paper? An empirical study of the citation distribution. European Physical Journal B, 4(2), 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2007). A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SCImago, (2018). SJR—SCImago Journal & Country Rank [Portal]. Retrieved February 4, 2018, from http://www.scimagojr.com.
  31. Taylor, M., Perakakis, P., & Trachana, V. (2008). The siege of science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 408–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Raan, A. F. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Visser, M. S. (2011). Severe language effect in university rankings: Particularly Germany and France are wronged in citation-based rankings. Scientometrics, 88(2), 495–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wildgaard, L., Schneider, J. W., & Larsen, B. (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 101(1), 125–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu, R. (2004). Making an impact. Nature, 428(6979), 206–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ye, F. Y. (2011). A unification of three models for the H-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zanotto, E. D. (2002). Scientific and technological development in Brazil. The widening gap. Scientometrics, 55(3), 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zanotto, E. D. (2006). The scientists pyramid. Scientometrics, 69(1), 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Materials Engineering (DEMa)Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar)São CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Center for Research, Technology and Education in Vitreous Materials (CeRTEV)Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar)São CarlosBrazil
  3. 3.Institute of Physics, São Carlos, University of São PauloSão CarlosBrazil

Personalised recommendations