Advertisement

Coping with the Inequity and Inefficiency of the H-Index: A Cross-Disciplinary Analytical Model

  • Fabio ZagonariEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper develops an empirically validated theoretical model of a researcher’s publication goal to assess which standardisations and policies are more likely to achieve equity and efficiency in different disciplines. The main theoretical insight is that there is a trade-off between equity and efficiency, as well as between networking activity and knowledge-diffusion activity. The main empirical insight is that, in order to achieve equity and efficiency, the original version of the H index should be replaced by a version that is standardised per author and per year and calculated by excluding reciprocal citations and publications other than peer-reviewed articles.

Keywords

H index Equity Efficiency Cross-disciplinary Analytical model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Alberto Zigoni and Jeroen Baas, Elsevier, for providing summary statistics for the Scopus dataset.

References

  1. 1.
    Castellani T, et al. Epistemic consequences of bibliometrics-based evaluation: insights from the scientific community. Soc Epistemol. 2016;30:398–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Rijcke S, et al. Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use: a literature review. Res Eval. 2016;25:161–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flatt JW, et al. Improving the measurement of scientific success by reporting a self-citation index. Publications. 2017;5(3):20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fong EA, Wilhite AW. Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0187394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haley MR. On the inauspicious incentives of the scholar-level H-index: an economist’s take on collusive and coercive citation. Appl Econ Lett. 2017;24:85–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harzing A-W, et al. hIa: an individual annual H-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length difference. Scientometrics. 2014;99:811–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herteliu C, et al. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of editor behaviour through potentially coercive citations. Publications. 2017;5(2):15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muller R, De Rijcke S. Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences. Res Eval. 2017;26:157–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Negahdary M, et al. The modified H-index of Scopus: a new way in fair scientometrics. Publ Res Q. 2018;34:430–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parish AJ, et al. Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0189742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rath K, Wohlrabe K. Recent trends in co-authorship in economics: evidence from RePEc. Appl Econ Lett. 2016;23:897–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zagonari F (2017) Scientific production and productivity in curriculum vitae characterisation: simple and nested H indices that support cross-disciplinary comparisons. http://amsacta.unibo.it/5601/1/WP1100.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze EconomicheUniversità di BolognaRiminiItaly

Personalised recommendations