Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Commonly Used Indexes for Assessment of Research Production

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Science Dynamics and Research Production

  • 1479 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, selected indicators and indexes (constructed on the basis of research publications and/or on the basis of a set of citations of these publications) are discussed. These indexes are frequently used for assessment of production of individual researchers. The chapter begins with several general remarks about indicators and indexes used in scientometrics. Then the famous h-index of Hirsch, its variants, and indexes complementary to the h-index are discussed. Next the g-index of Egghe as well as the \(i_n\)-indexes are described. The h-index, g-index, and \(i_n\)-indexes may provide a minimum of information for the quantitative part of assessment of the production of a researcher. Numerous indexes are described further in the text such as the m-index, p-index, \(IQ_p\)-index, A-index, R-index. The discussion of indexes continues with a discussion of indexes for the success of a researcher. In addition, a short list of indexes for quantitative characterization of research networks and their dynamics is presented.

Dedicated to Eugene Garfield: a pioneer in the world of scientometrics and bibliometrics 16 September 2015

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. P. Vinkler, The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators (Chandos, Oxford, 2010)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. J. King, A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. J. Inf. Sci. 13, 261–276 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. R. Todorov, W. Glänzel, Journal citation measures: a concise review. J. Inf. Sci. 14, 47–56 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. H.F. Moed, Bibliometric indicators reflect publication and management strategies. Scientometrics 47, 323–346 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. P. Vinkler, An attempt for defining some basic categories of scientometrics and classifying the indicators of evaluative scientometrics. Scientometrics 50, 539–544 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. P. Vinkler, An attempt of surveying and classifying bibliometric indicators for scientometric purposes. Scientometrics 13, 239–259 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. L.M. Raisig, Mathematical evaluation of the scientific serial. Science 131, 1417–1419 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. E. Garfield, Citation Indexing—its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities (Wiley, New York, 1979)

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. Garfield, Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 178, 471–479 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. E. Garfield, Journal impact factor: a brief review. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 161, 979–980 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Zitt, H. Small, Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: the audience factor. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1856–1860 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. M. Zitt, Citing-side normalization of journal impact: a robust variant of the audience factor. J. informetr. 4, 392–406 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. M. Chew, E.V. Villanueva, M.B. van der Weyden, Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994–2005) and their Editors’ views. J. R. Soc. Med. 100, 142–150 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. E. Garfield, The impact factor and using it correctly. Unfallchirurg 101, 413–414 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  15. E. Garfield, The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 295, 90–93 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. M. Zitt, The journal impact factor: Angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on J. K. Vanclay’s article 2011. Scientometrics 92, 485–503 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. S.J. Bensman, Garfield and the impact factor. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 41, 93–155 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. I. Marshakova-Shaikevich, The standard impact factor as an evaluation tool of science fields and scientific journals. Scientometrics 35, 283–290 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. R. Rousseau, Median and percentile impact factors: a set of new indicators. Scientometrics 63, 431–441 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. N. De Bellis, Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: From the Science Citation Index to Cybermetrics (Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. G. Abramo, C.A. D’Angelo, F. Di Costa, Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable? Scientometrics 84, 821–833 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. J.M. Campanario, Empirical study of journal impact factors obtained using the classical two-year citation window versus a five-year citation window. Scientometrics 87, 189–204 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  23. G. Buela-Casal, I. Zych, What do the scientists think about the impact factor? Scientometrics 92, 281–292 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  24. P. Ingwersen, The calculation of Web impact factors. J. Doc. 54, 236–243 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. P. Ingwersen, The pragmatics of a diachronic journal impact factor. Scientometrics 92, 319–324 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  26. M.R. Elkins, C.G. Maher, R.D. Herbert, A.M. Moseley, C. Sherrington, Correlation between the journal impact factor and three other journal citation indices. Scientometrics 85, 81–93 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. M.C. Calver, J.S. Bradley, Should we use the mean citations per paper to summarise a journal’s impact or to rank journals in the same field? Scientometrics 81, 611–615 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  28. L. Leydesdorff, T. Opthof, Scopus’s source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 2365–2369 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Amin, M. Mabe, Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspect. Publ. 1, 1–6 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  30. H.F. Moed, Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation (Springer, Berlin, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  31. B.K. Sen, Normalized impact factor. J. Doc. 48, 318–329 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. H.F. Moed, T.N. van Leeuwen, Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Information’s journal impact factors. J. Am. Soc. for Inf. Sci. 46, 461–467 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. H.F. Moed, T.N. van Leeuwen, J. Reedijk, Towards appropriate indicators of journal impact. Scientometrics 46, 575–589 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. B.K. Sen, K. Shailendra, Evaluation of recent scientific research output by a bibliometric method. Scientometrics 23, 31–46 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. A.M. Ramirez, E.O. Garcia, J.A. Del Rio, Renormalized impact factor. Scientometrics 47, 3–9 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. P.O. Seglen, Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br. Med. J. 314, 498–502 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. N. Sombatsompop, T. Markpin, W. Yochai, M. Saechiew, An evaluation of research performance for different subject categories using Impact Factor Point Average (IFPA) index: Thailand case study. Scientometrics 65, 293–305 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. R. Mansilla, E. Köppen, G. Cocho, P. Miramontes, On the behavior of journal impact factor rank-order distribution. J. informetr. 1, 155–160 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. P. Vinkler, Ratio of short term and long term impact factors and similarities of chemistry journals represented by references. Scientometrics 46, 621–633 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. W. Glänzel, H.F. Moed, Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics 53, 171–193 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Value for money. Editorial. Nat. Mater. 8, 535 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  42. S.J. Dubner, S.D. Levitt, Monkey Business (The New York Times Magazine, 6 May 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  43. E. Geisler, The Metrics of Science and Technology (Quorum Books, Westport, CT, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  44. B.R. Martin, J. Irvine, Assessing basic research. Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Res. Policy 12, 61–90 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  45. B.R. Martin, The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics 36, 343–362 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. L. Bornmann, Scientific peer review. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 45, 197–245 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. H.-D. Daniel, Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review. (VCH, Weinheim, 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  48. E. Rinia, T. van Leeuwen, H. van Vuren, A.F. van Raan, Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria. Res. Policy 27, 95–107 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  49. J.M. Campanario, Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 1. Sci. Commun. 19, 181–211 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. J.M. Campanario, Peer review for journals as it stands today—Part 2. Sci. Commun. 19, 277–306 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. M. Reinhart, Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometrics 81, 789–809 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. A. Ragone, K. Mirylenka, F. Casati, M. Marchese, On peer review in computer science. Scientometrics 97, 317–356 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. S. Cole, L. Rubin, J.R. Cole, Peer Review in the National Science Foundation. Phase One of a Study (National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1978)

    Google Scholar 

  54. J.R. Cole, S. Cole, Peer review in the National Science Foundation. Phase Two of a Study (National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1981)

    Google Scholar 

  55. F. Godlee, T. Jefferson, Peer Review in Health Sciences (BMJ Books, London, 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  56. L. Butler, I. McAllister, Metrics or peer review? Evaluating the 2001 UK research assessment exercise in political science. Polit. Stud. Rev. 7, 3–17 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. T. Luukkonen, Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: emerging ERC practices. Res. Eval. 21, 48–60 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. W.G.G. Benda, T.C.E. Engels, The predictive validity of peer review: a selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science. Int. J. Forecast. 27, 166–182 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel, Selection of Research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions. Scientometrics 63, 297–320 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. S. McKay, Social policy excellence—peer review or metrics? Analyzing the 2008 research assessment exercise in social work and social policy and administration. Soc. Policy Adm. 46, 526–543 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  61. L. Allen, C. Jones, K. Dolby, D. Lynn, M. Walport, Looking for landmarks: the role of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication outputs. PLoS One 4(6), e5910 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel, Selecting scientific excellence through committee peer review—A citation analysis of publications previously published to approval or rejection of post-doctoral research fellowship applicants. Scientometrics 68, 427–440 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel, Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: a citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1841–1852 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. L. Bornmann, G. Wallon, A. Ledin, Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes. PloS One 3, e3480 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. V. Bence, C. Oppenheim, The influence of peer review on the research assessment exercise. J. Inf. Sci. 30, 36–347 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  66. L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel, Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of committee peer review. B.I.F. Futura 19, 7–19 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  67. A. Schubert, T. Braun, Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics 9, 281–291 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. R. Plomp, The highly cited papers of professors as an indicator of a research group’s scientific performance. Scientometrics 29, 377–393 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R.K. Merton, A. Thackray, H. Zuckerman. Toward a Metric of Science: the Advent of Science Indicators (Wiley, New York, 1978)

    Google Scholar 

  70. C. Freeman, L. Soete, Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: what can we learn from the past. Res. Policy 38, 583–589 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. G.N. Gilbert, Measuring the growth of science: a review of indicators of scientific growth. Scientometrics 1, 9–34 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Scientometrics Indicators. A 32 Country Comparison of Publication Productivity and Citation Impact (World Scientific, London, 1985)

    Google Scholar 

  73. A.F.J. van Raan, Measuring science, in Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, eds. by H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2004), pp. 19–50

    Google Scholar 

  74. E. Babie, The Practice of Social Research, 13th edn. (Wadsworth, Australia, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  75. W. Glänzel, B. Thijs, The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric macroindicators. Scientometrics 59, 281–310 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  76. S. Hinze, W. Glänzel. Scientometric indicators in use: An overview. Presentation at European summer school of scientometrics, Berlin (2013). http://www.scientometrics-school.eu/images/2_1_13Hinze.pdf

  77. B. Thijs, W. Glänzel, The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric meso-indicators. The case of European universities. Scientometrics 66, 71–80 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts, Problems of citation analysis: a critical review. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 40, 342–349 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts, Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 36, 435–444 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. L.I. Meho, C.R. Sugimoto, Assessing the scholarly impact of information studies: a tale of two citation databases—Scopus and Web of Science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 2499–2508 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. R.N. Kostoff, Citation analysis of research performer quality. Scientometrics 53, 49–71 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. R.N. Kostoff, W.L. Martinez, Is citation normalization realistic? J. Inf. Sci. 31, 57–61 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. M.H. Medoff, The efficiency of self-citations in economics. Scientometrics 69, 69–84 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. K. Kousha, M. Thelwall, An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 309–320 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. N.L. Geller, J.S. de Cani, R.E. Davies, Lifetime-citation rates to compare scientists’ work. Soc. Sci. Res. 7, 256–345 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. N.L. Geller, J.S. de Cani, R.E. Davies, Lifetime-citation rates: a mathematical model to compare scientists’ work. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 32, 3–15 (1081)

    Google Scholar 

  87. C.S. Lin, M.H. Huang, D.Z. Chen, The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count. J. Informetr. 7, 611–621 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. G. Abramo, C.A. D’Angelo, F. Rosati, The importance of accounting for the number of co-authors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences. J. Informetr. 7, 198–208 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. L.M.A. Bettencourt, D.I. Kaiser, J. Kaur, Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks. J. Informetr. 3, 210–221 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. D.W. Aksnes, A. Rip, Researchers’ perceptions of citations. Res. Policy 38, 895–905 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. S. Lehman, A.D. Jackson, B.E. Lautrup, A quantitative analysis of indicators of scientific performance. Scientometrics 76, 369–390 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. W. Glänzel, K. Debackere, B. Thijs, A. Schubert, A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy. Scientometrics 67, 263–277 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. A.J. Chapman, Assessing research: citation-count shortcomings. Psychol.: Bull. Br. Psychol. Soc. 8, 339–341 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  94. P. Wouters, The citation culture. Academisch proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  95. W. Glänzel, U. Schoepflin, A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Inf. Process. Manag. 35, 31–44 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. N. Weinstock, Citation indexes, in Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science ed. by A. Kent, vol. 5 (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1971), pp. 16–41

    Google Scholar 

  97. E. Garfield, I.H. Sher, New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. Am. Doc. 14, 195–201 (1963)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. M.H. MacRoberts, B.R. MacRoberts, Problems of citation analysis: a critical review. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 40, 342–349 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. S.M. Lawani, On the heterogeneity and classification of author self-citations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 33, 281–284 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. W. Glänzel, B. Thijs, B. Schlemmer, A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication. Scientometrics 59, 63–77 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  101. S. Alonso, F.J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, \(h\)-index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J. Informetr. 3, 273–289 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. P. Jasco, The pros and cons of computing \(h\)-index using Google Scholar. Online Inf. Rev. 32, 437–452 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. P. Jacso, The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Scopus. Online Inf. Rev. 32, 524–535 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  104. P. Jacso, Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for F. W. Lancaster. Libr. Trends 56, 784–815 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  105. S. Redner, On the meaning of the \(h\)-index. J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. L03005 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  106. E. Csajbok, A. Berhidi, L. Vasas, A. Schubert, Hirsch-index for countries based on Essential Science Indicators data. Scientometrics 73, 91–117 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. L. Bornmann, H.-D. Daniel, What do we know about \(h\)-index. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 1381–1385 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. W. Glänzel, On the \(h\)-index—A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation. Scientometrics 67, 315–321 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. L. Egghe, The influence of transformations on the \(h\)-index and the \(g\)-index. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1304–1312 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. W. Glänzel. On the opportunities and limitations of the \(h\)-index. Sci. Focus 1, 10–11 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  111. L. Bornmann, The state of \(h\)-index research. EMBO Rep. 10, 2–6 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. B. Cronin, L. Melo, Using the \(h\)—index to rank influential information scientists. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57, 1275–1278 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. A. Schubert, Using the \(h\)-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics 78, 559–565 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. W. Glänzel, \(h\)-index for price medalists. ISSI Newsl. 4, 15–18 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  115. R. Rousseau, Reflections on recent developments of the \(h\)-index and \(h\)-type of indices. COLLNET J. Sci. Inf. Manage. 2, 1–8 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  116. L. Egghe, I.K. Ravichandra Rao, Study of different \(h\)-indexes for groups of authors. J. Am. Soci. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1276–1281 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. R. Rousseau, A case study: evolution of JASIS’ Hirsch index. Sci. Focus 1, 16–17 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  118. L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, H.-D. Daniel, The \(h\)-index research output measurement: two approaches to enhance its accuracy. J. Informetr. 4, 407–414 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, An infometric model for the Hirsch-index. Scientometrics 69, 121–129 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. R. Rousseau, The influence of missing publications on the Hirsch index. J. Informetr. 1, 2–7 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. M. Norris, C. Oppenheim, Peer review and the h-index: two studies. J. Informetr. 4, 221–232 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. M. Norris, C. Oppenheim, The h-index: a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator. J. Doc. 66, 681–705 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. L. Egghe, Dynamic \(h\)-index: the Hirsch index in function of time. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 452–454 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. M. Henzinger, J. Sunol, I. Weber, The stability of the h-index. Scientometrics 84, 465–479 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. R. Burrows, Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. Sociol. Rev. 60, 355–372 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  126. X. Hu, R. Rousseau, J. Chen, In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. J. Inf. Sci. 36, 73–85 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  127. L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, A \(h\)-index weighted by citation impact. Inf. Process. Manag. 44, 770–780 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. L. Egghe, Modelling successive \(h\)-indexes. Scientometrics 77, 377–387 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. J.E. Iglesias, C. Pecharroman, Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics 73, 303–320 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. R. Guns, R. Rousseau, Real and rational variants of the \(h\)-index and \(g\)-index. J. Informetr. 3, 64–71 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. L. Egghe, L. Liang, R. Rousseau, A relation between \(h\)-index and impact factor in the power-law model. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 2362–2365 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. J. Bar-Ilan, Which \(h\)-index? A comparison of WoS Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 74, 257–271 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. L. Egghe, Mathematical theory of the \(h\)- and \(g\)-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1608–1616 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. J.E. Hirsch, An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS 102, 16569–16572 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. B. Cronin, L.I. Meho, Using the \(h\)-index to rank influential information scientists. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57, 1275–1278 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. T. Braun, W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientist 19, 8 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  137. A.W. Harzing, R. van der Wal, A Google Scholar h-index for journals: an alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 41–46 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. M.G. Banks, An extension of the Hirsch index: indexing scientific topics and compounds. Scientometrics 69, 161–168 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. A. Schubert, W. Glänzel, A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. J. Informetr. 1, 179–184 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. A.W.F. Edwards, System to rank scientists was pedaled by Jeffreys. Nature 437(7061), 951 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. F.Y. Ye, An investigation of mathematical models of the \(h\)-index. Scientometrics 81, 493–498 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, S.E. Hug, H.-D. Daniel, A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the \(h\) index and 37 different \(h\)-index variants. J. Informetr. 5, 346–359 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  143. N.J. van Eck, J. Waltman, Generalizing the h- and g-indices. J. Informetr. 2(4), 263–271 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. L. Engqvist, J.G. Frommen, New insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 1514–1516 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. J.H. Fowler, D.W. Aksnes, Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics 72, 427–437 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. M.H. Huang, W.Y.C. Lin, Probing the effect of author self-citations on h-index: a case study of environmental engineering. J. Inf. Sci. 37, 453–461 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. E. Gianoli, M.A. Molina-Montenegro, Insights into the relationship between the h-index and self-citations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 1283–1285 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. R. Costas, T.N. van Leeuwen, M. Bordons, Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of different calculation methods. Scientometrics 82, 517–537 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. K.R. Dienes, Completing \(h\). J. Informetr. 9, 385–397 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. R. Rousseau, C. Garcia-Zorita, E. Sanz-Casado, The \(h\)-bubble. J. Informetr. 7, 294–300 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. L. Zhang, B. Thijs, W. Glänzel, The diffusion of h-related literature. J. Informetr. 5, 583–593 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  152. P.D. Batista, M.G. Campiteli, O. Kinouchi, A.S. Martinez, Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics 68, 179–189 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. V. Sypsa, A. Hatzakis, Assessing the impact of biomedical research in academic institutions of disparate sizes. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9, Article No. 33. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-33

  154. T.R. Anderson, R.K.S. Hankin, P.D. Killworth, Beyond the Durfee square: enhancing the \(h\)-index to score total population output. Scientometrics 76, 577–588 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. N.T. Hagen, Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLOS One 3, e4021 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. N.T. Hagen, Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably—not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics 84, 785–793 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. X.Z. Liu, H. Fang, Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index. Scientometrics 91, 37–49 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. X.Z. Liu, H. Fang, Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution. J. Informetr. 6, 557–565 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. D.B. de Beaver, Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and future. Scientometrics 52(2001), 365–377 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  160. M. Schreiber, A modification of the \(h\)-index: the \(h_m\)-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. J. Informetr. 2, 211–216 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. J.E. Hirsch, An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics 85, 741–754 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. S. Galam, Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional \(gh\)-index. Scientometrics 89, 365–379 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. D. de Solla Price, Multiple authorship. Science 212(4498), 986–986 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. G. van Hooydonk, Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: consequences for the impact of authors. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 48, 944–945 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, G. van Hooydonk, Methods for acrediting publications to authors or countries: consequences for evaluation studies. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 51, 145–157 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. J. Stallings, E. Vance, J. Yang, M.W. Vanier, J. Liang, L. Pang, L. Dai, I. Ye, G. Wang, Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index. PNAS 110, 9680–9685 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  167. L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, H.-D. Daniel, 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. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 830–837 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. P. Dorta-Gonzales, M.-I. Dorta-Gonzales, Central indexes to the citation distribution: a complement to the \(h\)-index. Scientometrics 88, 729–745 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Hirsch-type characteristics of the tail of distributions. J. Informetr. 4, 118–123 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  170. L. Egghe, Characteristic scores and scales based on \(h\)-type indices. J. Informetr. 4, 14–22 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. W. Glänzel, A. Schubert, Characteristic scores and scales in assessing citation impact. J. Inf. Sci. 14, 123–127 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  172. L. Egghe, Characteristic scores and scales in a Lotkaian framework. Scientometrics 83, 455–462 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. A. Sidiropoulos, D. Katsaros, Y. Manolopoulos, Ranking and identifying influential scientists versus mass producers by the Perfectionism Index. Scientometrics 103, 1–31 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. F. Ye, L. Leydesdorff, The academic trace of the performance matrix: a mathematical synthesis of the \(h\)-index and the integrated impact indicator (I3). J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65, 742–750 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. S.V. Dorogovtsev, J.F.F. Mendes, Ranking scientists. Nat. Phys. 11, 882–883 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. M.A. Garzia-Perez, An extension of the \(h\)-index that covers the tail and the top of the citation curve and allows ranking researchers with similar \(h\). J. Informetr. 6, 689–699 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. M. Schreiber, Self-citations corrections to the Hirsch index. Europhys. Lett. 78, Art. No. 30002 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  178. M. Schreiber, The influence of self-citation corrections on the Egghe’s g-index. Scientometrics 76, 187–200 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. M.A. Garcia-Perez, A multidimensional extension to Hirsch’s \(h\)-index. Scientometrics 81, 779–785 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. A. Schubert, Successive \(h\)-indices. Scientometrics 70, 201–205 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. A. Schubert, A Hirsch-type index of co-author partnership ability. Scientometrics 91, 303–308 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. F.J. Cabrerizo, S. Alonso, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herera, \(q^2\)-index: quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core. J. Informetr. 4, 23–28 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. S. Alonso, F.J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, \(hg\)-index: a new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the \(h\)-and \(g\)-indices. Scientometrics 82, 391–400 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  184. S. Moussa, M. Touzani, Ranking marketing journals using the Google-based \(hg\)-index. J. Informetr. 4, 107–117 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. L. Egghe, An improvement of the \(h\)-index: the \(g\)-index. ISSI Newsl. 2, 8–9 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  186. L. Egghe, Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 69, 131–152 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. L. Egghe, An econometric property of the \(g\)-index. Inf. Process. Manage. 45, 484–489 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. L. Egghe, The Hirsch-index and related impact measures. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 44, 65–114 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. M. Schreiber, How to modify the g-index for multi-authored manuscripts. J. Informetr. 4, 42–54 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. M. Schreiber, A case study of the modified g-index: counting multi-author publications fractionally. J. Informetr. 4, 636–643 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  191. R. Costas, M. Bordons, Is \(g\)-index better than the \(h\)-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics 77, 267–288 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  192. G. Prathap, The 100 most prolific economists using the \(p\)-index. Scientometrics 84, 167–172 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. G. Prathap, The energy-exergy-entropy (or EEE) sequences in bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics 87, 515–524 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. J. Antonakis, R. Lalive, Quantifying scholarly impact: \(IQ_p\) versus the Hirsch index. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 956–969 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. B.-H. Jin, L.-M. Liang, R. Rousseau, L. Egghe, The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. Chin. Sci. Bull. 52(6), 855–863 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. R. Rousseau, F.Y. Ye, A proposal for a dynamic \(h\)-type index. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1853–1855 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Q.L. Burrell, Hirsch index or Hirsch rate? Some thoughts arising from Liang’s data. Scientometrics 73, 19–28 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. L. Waltman, N.J. van Eck, T.N. van Leeuween, M.S. Visser, A.F.J. van Raan, Towards new crown indicator: an empirical analysis. Scientometrics 87, 467–481 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  199. R.E. de Bruin, A. Kint, M. Luwel, H.F. Moed, A study of research evaluation and planning. Res. Eval. 3, 25–41 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  200. T. Braun, W. Glänzel, United Germany: the new scientific superpower? Scientometrics 19, 513–521 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  201. H.F. Moed, R.E. de Bruin, T.N. van Leeuween, New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics 33, 381–422 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  202. P. Vinkler, Eminence of scientists in the light of the \(h\)-index and other scientometrics indicators. J. Inf. Sci. 33, 481–491 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  203. T.J. Phelan, A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics 45, 117–136 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  204. T.J. Phelan, Is Australian educational research worthwhile? Aust. J. Educ. 44, 175–194 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  205. P. Vinkler, The \(\pi \)-index. A new indicator for assessing scientific impact. J. Inf. Sci. 35, 602–612 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  206. J. Wu, Investigating the universal distributions of normalized indicators and developing field-independing index. J. Informetr. 7, 63–71 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  207. F. Franceschini, M. Galetto, D. Maisano, L. Mastrogiacomo, The success-index: an alternative approach to the \(h\)-index for evaluating an individuals research output. Scientometrics 92, 621–641 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  208. F. Franceschini, M. Galetto, D. Maisano, L. Mastrogiacomo, Further clarifications about the success-index. J. Informetr. 6, 669–673 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  209. F. Francheschini, M. Galeto, M. Maisano, L. Mastrogiacomo, An infometric model for the success index. J. Informetr. 7, 109–116 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  210. L. Egghe, Impact coverage of the success index. J. Informetr. 8, 384–389 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  211. M. Kosmulski, Successful papers: a new idea in evaluation of scientific output. J. Informetr. 5, 481–485 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  212. P. Vinkler, Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics 10, 157–177 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  213. A.-L. Barabasi, Linked. How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and Ehat it Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life (Basic Books, New York, 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  214. M. Newman, A.-L. Barabasi, D.J. Watts, The Structure and Dynamics of Networks (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  215. A.-L. Barabasi, Z.N. Oltivai, Network biology: understanding the cell’s functional organization. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 101–113 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  216. H. Jeong, B. Tombor, R. Albert, Z.N. Oltivai, A.-L. Barabasi, The large-scale organization of metabolic networks. Nature 407(6804), 651–654 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  217. R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani, Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86(14), 3200–3203 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  218. D. Smilkov, C.A. Hidalgo, L. Kocarev, Beyond network structure: how heterogeneous susceptibility modulates the spread of epidemics

    Google Scholar 

  219. R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani, Epidemic dynamics and endemic states in complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 63, Art. No. 0661117 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  220. L. Isella, J. Stehle, A. Barrat, C. Cattuto, J.-F. Pinton, W. van den Broeck, What’s in a crowd? Analysis of face-to-face behavioral networks. J. Theor. Biol. 271, 166–180 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  221. A.-L. Barabasi, The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. Nature 435(7039), 207–211 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  222. S. Fortunato, M. Brathelemy, Resolution limit in community detection. PNAS 104, 36–41 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  223. G. Palla, I. Derenyi, I. Farkas, T. Vicsek, Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society. Nature 435, 814–818 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  224. A. Lancichinetti, S. Fortunato, Community detection algorithms: a comparative analysis. Phys. Rev. E 80, Art. No. 056117 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  225. J.J. Ramasco, S.N. Dorogovtsev, R. Pastor-Satorras, Self-organization of collaboration networks. Phys. Rev. E 70, Art. No. 036106 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  226. A. Scharnhorst, M. Thelwall, Cytation and hyperlink networks. Curr. Sci. 89, 1518–1523 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  227. G. Ahuja, Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: a longitudinal study. Adm. Sci. Q. 45, 425–455 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  228. F. Havemann, A. Scharnhornst, bibliometrische netzwerke, in Handbuch Netzwerkforschung, eds. by C. Stegbauer, R. Häusling (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 799–823

    Google Scholar 

  229. A. Pyka, A. Scharnhorst (eds.), Innovation networks. New Approaches in Modeling and Analyzing (Springer, Berlin, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  230. A. Scharnhorst, Citation-networks, science landscapes and evolutionary strategies. Scientometrics 43, 95–106 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  231. J. Ortega, I. Aguillo, V. Cothey, A. Scharnhorst, Maps of the academic web in the European Higher Education Area—an exploration of visual web indicators. Scientometrics 74, 295–308 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  232. M.E.J. Newman, The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS 98, 404–409 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  233. B. Kozma, A. Barrat, Consensus formation on adaptive networks. Phys. Rev. E 77, Art. No. 016102 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  234. S. Fortunato, V. Latora, A. Pluchino, A. Rapisarda, Vector opinion dynamics in a bounded confidence consensus model. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 16, 1535–1551 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  235. L. Dall’Asta, A. Baroncheli, A. Barrat, V. Loreto, Agreement dynamics on small-world networks. Europhys. Lett. 73, 969–975 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  236. M. Barthelemy, Spatial networks. Phys. Rep. 499, 1–101 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  237. R. Albert, A.-L. Barabasi, Topology of evolving networks: local events and Universality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5234–5237 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  238. R. Albert, I. Albert, G.L. Nakarado, Structural vulnerability of the North American power grid. Phys. Rev. E 69, Art. No. 025103 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  239. R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani, Evolution and structure of the internet: a statistical physics approach. Evolution and Structure of the Internet (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  240. A. Reka, H. Jeong, A.-L. Barabasi, Diameter of the World Wide Web. Nature 401, 130–131 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  241. A. Vazquez, R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Vespignani, Large-scale topological and dynamical properties of the Internet. Phys. Rev. E 65, Art. No. 066130 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  242. Y. Moreno, M. Nekovee, A.F. Pacheco, Dynamics of rumor spreading in complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 69, Art. No. 066130 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  243. M. Nekovee, Y. Moreno, G. Bianconi, M. Marsili, Theory of rumor spreading in complex social networks. Phys. A 374, 457–470 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  244. E. Otte, R. Rousseau, Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. J. Inf. Sci. 28, 441–453 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  245. Y.-H. Eom, S. Fortunato, Characterizing and modeling citation dynamics. PLOS One 6, e24926 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  246. F. Raddichi, S. Fortunato, B. Markines, A. Vespignani, Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists. Phys. Rev. E 80, Art. No. 056103 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  247. A. Schubert, A. Korn, A. Telcs, Hirsch-type indices for characterizing networks. Scientometrics 78, 375–382 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  248. F. Mali, L. Kronegger, P. Doreian, A. Ferligoj, Dynamics scientific co-authorship networks, in Models of Science Dynamics, eds. by A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, P. van den Besselaar (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 195–232

    Google Scholar 

  249. F. Raddichi, S. Fortunato, A. Vespigniani, Citation networks, in Models of Science Dynamics, eds. by A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, P. van den Besselaar (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 233–257

    Google Scholar 

  250. L. Egghe, R. Rousseau, Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics 55, 349–361 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  251. Y. Ding, E.J. Yan, A. Frazho, J. Caverlee, PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 2229–2243 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  252. P. Chen, S. Redner, Community structure of the physical review citation network. J. Informetr. 4, 278–290 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  253. S.X. Zhao, R. Roussseau, F.Y. Ye, \(h\)-degree as a basic measure in weighted networks. J. Informetr. 5, 668–677 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  254. A. Abbasi, L. Hossain, L. Leydesdorf, Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. J. Informetr. 6, 403–412 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  255. L.C. Freeman, Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw. 1, 215–239 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  256. X. Yan, L. Zhai, W. Fan, C-index: a weighted network mode centrality measure for collaboration competence. J. Informetr. 7, 223–239 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  257. A. Korn, A. Schubert, A. Telcs, Lobby index in networks. Phys. A 388, 2221–2226 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  258. M.G. Campiteli, A.J. Holanda, L.D.H. Soares, P.R.C. Soles, O. Kinouchi, Lobby index as a network centrality measure. Phys. A 392, 5511–5515 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  259. M. Ausloos, A scientometric law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core. Scientometrics 95, 895–909 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  260. P. Jaccard, The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. New Phytol. 11, 37–50 (1912)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  261. M. Levandowsky, D. Winter, Distance between sets. Nature 234(5), 34–35 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Mechanics, Sofia, Bulgaria

    Nikolay K. Vitanov

  2. Max-Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, Dresden, Germany

    Nikolay K. Vitanov

Authors
  1. Nikolay K. Vitanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolay K. Vitanov .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vitanov, N.K. (2016). Commonly Used Indexes for Assessment of Research Production. In: Science Dynamics and Research Production. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Scientific and Scholarly Communication. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41631-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation