iMechanica - Wikipedia on H-index ---- another excellent article, and also very interesting! - Comments

Lets also rank journals / I start with IJSS who wants to do more

Mike Ciavarella — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:52:08 -0400

I just did IJSS

Most cited papers and H-factor of some mechanics journals -- IJSS

who wants to do JMPS, and the other journals?

Mike

Is there a way to measure contribution of each ref. on a paper?

RoozbehSanaei — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:32:45 -0400

Is there any scientometric way to calculate a contribution of each ref. on a paper? it may be important.

more Citation metrics from Publish or Perish User's Manual

Mike Ciavarella — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:04:49 -0400

Citation metrics

Publish or Perish User's Manual

Citation metrics

Publish or Perish calculates the following citation metrics:

Total number of papers
Total number of citations
Average number of citations per paper
Average number of citations per author
Average number of papers per author
Hirsch's h-index and related parameters, shown as
h-index and Hirsch a=y.yy, m=z.zz in the output
Egghe's g-index, shown as g-index in the output
The contemporary h-index, shown as hc-index
and ac=y.yy in the output
Two variations of the individual h-index, shown as
hI-index and hI,norm in the output
The age-weighted citation rate
An analysis of the number of authors per paper.

Please note that these metrics are only as good as their input. We recommend
that you consult the following topics for information about the limitations of
the citation metrics and the underlying sources that Publish or Perish uses:

h-index

The h-index was proposed by J.E. Hirsch in his paper An index to quantify
an individual's scientific research output, arXiv:physics/0508025 v5 29 Sep 2005. It is defined as
follows:

A scientist has index h if h of his/her Np papers have at least h
citations each, and the other (Np-h) papers have no more than h
citations each.

It aims to measure the cumulative impact of a researcher's output by looking
at the amount of citation his/her work has received. Publish or Perish
calculates and displays the h index proper, its associated
proportionality constant a (from Nc,tot =
ah2), and the rate parameter m (from h ~ mn, where
n is the number of years since the first publication).

The properties of the h-index have been analyzed in various papers; see for
example Leo Egghe and Ronald Rousseau: An informetric model for the
Hirsch-index, Scientometrics, Vol. 69, No. 1 (2006), pp. 121-129.

This metric is shown as h-index and Hirsch a=y.yy,
m=z.zz in the output.

g-index

The g-index was proposed by Leo Egghe in his paper Theory and practice of
the g-index, Scientometrics, Vol. 69, No 1 (2006), pp. 131-152. It is
defined as follows:

[Given a set of articles] ranked in decreasing order of the number of
citations that they received, the g-index is the (unique) largest number such
that the top g articles received (together) at least g2
citations.

It aims to improve on the h-index by giving more weight to highly-cited
articles.

This metric is shown as g-index in the output.

Contemporary h-index

The Contemporary h-index was proposed by Antonis Sidiropoulos, Dimitrios
Katsaros, and Yannis Manolopoulos in their paper Generalized h-index for
disclosing latent facts in citation networks, arXiv:cs.DL/0607066
v1 13 Jul 2006.

It adds an age-related weighting to each cited article, giving (by default;
this depends on the parametrization) less weight to older articles. The
weighting is parametrized; the Publish or Perish implementation uses
gamma=4 and delta=1, like the authors did for their experiments.
This means that for an article published during the current year, its citations
account four times. For an article published 4 years ago, its citations account
only one time. For an article published 6 years ago, its citations account 4/6
times, and so on.

This metric is shown as hc-index and ac=y.yy in
the output.

Individual h-index (2 variations)

The Individual h-index was proposed by Pablo D. Batista, Monica G. Campiteli,
Osame Kinouchi, and Alexandre S. Martinez in their paper Is it possible to
compare researchers with different scientific interests?,
Scientometrics, Vol 68, No. 1 (2006), pp. 179-189.

It divides the standard h-index by the average number of authors in the
articles that contribute to the h-index, in order to reduce the effects of
co-authorship; the resulting index is called hI.

Publish or Perish also implements an alternative individual h-index,
hI,norm, that takes a different approach: instead of dividing the
total h-index, it first normalizes the number of citations for each paper by
dividing the number of citations by the number of authors for that paper, then
calculates hI,norm as the h-index of the normalized citation
counts. This approach is much more fine-grained than Batista et al.'s; we
believe that it more accurately accounts for any co-authorship effects that
might be present and that it is a better approximation of the per-author impact,
which is what the original h-index set out to provide.

These metrics are shown as hI-index (Batista et al.'s) and
hI,norm (PoP's) in the output.

Age-weighted citation rate (AWCR, AWCRpA) and AW-index

The age-weighted citation rate was inspired by Bihui Jin's note The
AR-index: complementing the h-index, ISSI Newsletter, 2007, 3(1), p.
6.

The AWCR measures the number of citations to an entire body of work, adjusted
for the age of each individual paper. It is an age-weighted citation rate, where
the number of citations to a given paper is divided by the age of that paper.
Jin defines the AR-index as the square root of the sum of all age-weighted
citation counts over all papers that contribute to the h-index. However, in the
Publish or Perish implementation we sum over all papers instead, because we feel
that this represents the impact of the total body of work more accurately. (In
particular, it allows younger and as yet less cited papers to contribute to the
AWCR, even though they may not yet contribute to the h-index.)

The AW-index is defined as the square root of the AWCR to allow comparison
with the h-index; it approximates the h-index if the (average) citation rate
remains more or less constant over the years.

The per-author age-weighted citation rate is similar to the plain AWCR, but
is normalized to the number of authors for each paper.

These metrics are shown as AWCR, AWCRpA and
AW-index in the output.

Publish or Perish User's Manual - Topic last modified on 27/01/08 12:19
Copyright © 1990-2008 Tarma Software
Research. All rights reserved.

Yes, I read it monthly and also Nature comments in this regard.

RoozbehSanaei — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:04:51 -0400

that is a nice journal, i think it discusses an important issue despite it's low IF!. I also read Nature comments in this regard. most of papers are based in this assumption : "Authors choose their references!" but in fact " authors just use any hing that they can use it faster and justifies their work better. i think this picture from PHD comics is near to reality and also funny. even best scientists do like this for those papers which are not very related to their main topic. It does not mean scientists are doing weak works, It means bibliometrics are not very trustful.

if you are interested in this topic IMU report on citation statistics is also very informative.

Roozeh, but have you seen Scientometrics?

Mike Ciavarella — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:17:59 -0400

Scientometric is a journal full of this type of discussions. You should check it.

Only looking at one issue, e.g.

Scientometrics

Volume: 76, Issue: 1

July 2008

Save Selected |
Clear All

The evaluation of university departments and their scientists: Some
general considerations with reference to exemplary bibliometric
publication and citation analyses for a Department of psychology

Krampen, Günter
pp. 3 - 21

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (389 KB)

Scientometric definition of science: In what respect is the humanities
more scientific than mathematical and social sciences?

Eto, Hajime
pp. 23 - 42

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (240 KB)

Relation of seminal nanotechnology document production to total nanotechnology document production — South Korea

Kostoff, Ronald N.; Barth, Ryan B.; Lau, Clifford G. Y.
pp. 43 - 67

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (970 KB)

Great expectations: The role of Open Access in improving countries’ recognition

Sotudeh, Hajar; Horri, Abbas
pp. 69 - 93

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (304 KB)

Ranking Taiwanese management journals: A case study

Kao, Chiang; Lin, Hsiou-Wei; Chung, San-Lin; Tsai, Wei-Chi; Chiou, Jyh-Shen; Chen, Yen-Liang; et. al.
pp. 95 - 115

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (258 KB)

The mathematical relation between the impact factor and the uncitedness factor

Egghe, Leo
pp. 117 - 123

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (153 KB)

How do we measure the use of scientific journals? A note on research methodologies

Moghaddam, Golnessa Galyani; Moballeghi, Mostafa
pp. 125 - 133

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (156 KB)

PageRank for bibliographic networks

Fiala, Dalibor; Rousselot, François; Ježek, Karel
pp. 135 - 158

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (601 KB)

The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update

Leydesdorff, Loet
pp. 159 - 167

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (434 KB)

What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology

Haslam, Nick; Ban, Lauren; Kaufmann, Leah; Loughnan, Stephen; Peters, Kim; Whelan, Jennifer; et. al.
pp. 169 - 185

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (217 KB)

The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe’s g index

Schreiber, Michael
pp. 187 - 200

Bibliographic Page
| Article Full Text PDF (309 KB)

Thanks for your link.

RoozbehSanaei — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:13:10 -0400

This link is very useful at least for me. Time shortage forces people to use numbers.research evaluation enhances like any other methodologies. Dynamic review paper also is a way to judge about different works in a cooperative manner.

Re: Google scholar and h-index (aka Google APIs)

Biswajit Banerjee — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:46:23 -0400

Google has provided several APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) for outsiders to use Google's data.

There's a Google project called citations-gadget which may be what you're looking for. You can find other APIs at http://code.google.com/

My own views on h-index have been summed up in an excellent blog post by Bee (of BackReaction) called

We have only ourselves to judge on each other.

To quote Bee

"Don't fall for shortcuts. Under time pressure, people tend to look for easy criteria to judge on other people or their projects. Such might be the citation index, the number of papers, prominent coauthors or grants obtained. In all instances scientists should judge on other's work by themselves. This requires that scientists have enough time for this judgement. Time is essential, but too short in today's research atmosphere. For a thought on how to cut back on researcher's duties, see previous post on Research and Teaching."

-- Biswajit

F. Moisy on how we can generalize multiple authors..

Mike Ciavarella — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:13:26 -0400

Dear M. Ciavarella

This should work for a list of people:

name={'a einstein','f moisy','c bruni'};
for n=1:length(name),
h(n)=hindex(name{n});
disp([name{n} ' ' num2str(h(n))]);
end

Sincerely
F. Moisy

For example, by cleaning "M.Ciavarella" I find H=13

Mike Ciavarella — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:49:07 -0400

The number of articles is 0

The total number of citations is 624

The maximum number of citations is 56

The h-number (or h-index) is 13

The m-number (or m-index) is 0.34210526315789475 (1970-2008)

but then the output is very slow....both in web1 or web2 format. not sure why!

But I start to think the best is this french one...

Mike Ciavarella — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:35:16 -0400

I start to think the best sofware is this from collegues in Paris --- maybe I can contact them!

http://hview.limsi.fr/

In fact, I suspect you can use authomatic scripts by using for example the string

http://hview.limsi.fr/hpagew2.php?level=1&subj=chm&subj=eng&name=%22M.Ci...

or maybe multiple authors so we can play with. The problem with Google Scholar is that it seems it is NOT classified by LOCATION or INSTITUTION, but only AUTHOR and FIELD.

However, see the help:

Help

Use the OR operator with quotes for names with non-unique spellings; for example,
The guy you think to know as Fred Vernier should be writen:

"Frédéric Vernier" OR "Frederic Vernier"
On the other hand you still miss some of his articles. If you type
"F Vernier" you will have all his articles but ... also articles from someone else. You then have to deselect
them is order to find the right h-curve !
Warning Restricting an author to a given domain will remove all the articles
google scholar couldn't classify ! For instance articles not written in english. Restricting to given years
will also remove all articles google scholar couldn't determine the year.
Most of the time data must be cleaned ! remove articles from others and
merge articles (when typos made google duplicate a single article)
We disclaim everything, especially every problem resulting from the data returned by Google Scholar.
Data you enter is not logged yet ... but we want to save all
the cleaning work done by users in order to improve the data source !
You may save the url in the address textfield of your browser but we
will change the format soon and the old address will return an error.
You may enter many names in the author textfield to evaluate a full team of researsher but the system is already slow ...
You may experience denial of service from google scholar
sometime. Retry 2 or 3 times. If you still have nothing come back the
day after.
I did compute the h-view of the whole UIST conference and the first 3 for the 20th anniversary of UIST. The poster was presented at UIST'07.

No, at the moment I am trying to understand QuadSearch

Mike Ciavarella — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:26:52 -0400

About QuadSearch

The metasearch
engines are web services designed to transfer the user's queries to
multiple existing search engines. A metasearch engine does not maintain
its own index of documents. It collects and reorganizes the result
lists (top-k lists), then it returns the processed data to the user.

Compared to a classic single search engine, a metasearch engine offers:

Increased web coverage
Improved retrieval effectiveness
Effortless invocation of multiple search engines

QuadSearch is a brand new and constantly evolving metasearch engine. It is hosted by the Raptor web server, which belongs to the Data Engineering Laboratory (DELAB), of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

It has been created by Leonidas Akritidis, George Voutsakelis, Dimitrios Katsaros and Panayiotis Bozanis.

Their
main purpose is to build a powerful scientific tool, that will be used
by the academic community in order to retrieve useful information.
Their secondary objective focuses on finding better and faster ranking
algorithms.

QuadSearch's heart is
the KE Algorithm, which is the mechanism that determines the
classification of the collected results. KE Algorithm was invented by
the founders of this engine and has also been the basis for Search Engine Analyzer.
Apart from KE Algorithm, QuadSearch is capable of using a variety of
several other ranking algorithms, to classify the results.

As mentioned
above, QuadSearch is constantly under construction. If you have any
suggestions for it, or you want to report a security issue, please let
us know, by filling the appropriate contact form.

I think h factor for subjects is even more rational.

RoozbehSanaei — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:31:04 -0400

I think h factor for subjects is even more rational than h factor for authors.

personally i prefer to compare citation number of a paper with citation number of refered papers for evaluating a paper in a subject. i think it is very rational.

I am trying with JScript now.

RoozbehSanaei — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:28:04 -0400

I am trying with Java Script.

[I like JScript because it's free, works in all versions of Windows, linux, Mc and even handphone!]

Please make me aware if you got more result with matlab.

Ok, one or the other, let's do it -- we cannot only talk about..

Mike Ciavarella — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:43:08 -0400

michele ciavarella
www.micheleciavarella.it

However, this code does NOT seem to work !

Mike Ciavarella — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 05:22:39 -0400

I get an error which seems from the matlab web site that had appeared previously, but maybe it is worse? google scholar maybe interprets any call from matlab as an attack even for a single use!

If I go to
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=it&lr=&q=Albert+Einstein

it works

but if I write
urlread('http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=it&lr=&q=Albert+Einstein')

there is the error

whereas if I write plain

urlread('http://scholar.google.com/')

it works again.

How to solve this?

Regards, Mike

Wikipedia on H-index ---- another excellent article, and also very interesting!

Mike Ciavarella — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:12:11 -0400

h-index
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Hirsch number)

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the index of scientific research impact. For the economic measure, see Herfindahl index.

The $h$ -index is an index
that quantifies both the actual scientific productivity and the
apparent scientific impact of a scientist. The index is based on the
set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations
that they have received in other people's publications. The index can
also be applied to the productivity and impact of a group of
scientists, such as a department or university or country. The index
was suggested by Jorge E. Hirsch, a physicist at UCSD, as a tool for determining theoretical physicists' relative quality[1] and is sometimes called the Hirsch index or Hirsch number.

Hirsch suggests that, for physicists, a value for h of about 10-12
might be a useful guideline for tenure decisions at major research
universities. A value of about 18 could mean a full professorship,
15–20 could mean a fellowship in the American Physical Society, and 45 or higher could mean membership in the United States National Academy of Sciences.[2]

Contents
[hide]

[edit] Definition and purpose

The index is based on the distribution of citations received by a given researcher's publications. Hirsch writes:

A scientist has index h if h of his Np papers have at least h citations each, and the other (Np - h) papers have at most h citations each.

H-index from a plot of decreasing citations for numbered papers

In other words, a scholar with an index of h has published h papers each of which has been cited by others at least h times.[3] Thus, the h-index
reflects both the number of publications and the number of citations
per publication. The index is designed to improve upon simpler measures
such as the total number of citations or publications. The index works
properly only for comparing scientists working in the same field;
citation conventions differ widely among different fields.

The h-index serves as an alternative to more traditional journal impact factor
metrics in the evaluation of the impact of the work of a particular
researcher. Because only the most highly cited articles contribute to
the h-index, its determination is a relatively simpler process. Hirsch has demonstrated that $h$ has high predictive value for whether a scientist has won honors like National Academy membership or the Nobel Prize. In physics, a moderately productive scientist should have an $h$ equal to the number of years of service while biomedical scientists tend to have higher values.

[edit] Calculating $h$

The $h$ -index can be manually determined using free Internet databases, such as Google Scholar. Subscription-based databases such as Scopus and the Web of Knowledge provide automated calculators. Each database is likely to produce a different $h$
for the same scholar, because of different coverage in each DB: Google
Scholar has more citations than Scopus and Web of Science but each of
their smaller citation collections tends to be more accurate.

The topic has been studied in some detail by Lokman I. Meho and Kiduk Yang.[4] Web of Knowledge
was found to have strong coverage of journal publications, but poor
coverage of high impact conferences (a particular problem for Computer
Science based scholars); Scopus has better coverage of conferences, but poor coverage of publications prior to 1992; Google Scholar has the best coverage of conferences and most journals (though not all), but like Scopus has limited coverage of pre-1990 publications. Google Scholar has also been criticized for including gray literature in its citation counts.[5]
However, the Meho and Yang study showed that the majority of the
additional citation sources Google Scholar uses are legitimate refereed
forums. It has been suggested that in order to deal with the sometimes
wide variation in $h$ for a single
academic measured across the possible citation databases, that one
could assume false negatives in the databases are more problematic than
false positives and take the maximum $h$ measured for an academic.[6]

It should be remembered that the content of all of the databases,
particularly Google Scholar, continually changes, so any research on
the content of the databases risks going out of date.

[edit] Advantages

The h-index was intended to address the main disadvantages of
other bibliometric indicators, such as total number of papers or total
number of citations. Total number of papers does not account for the
quality of scientific publications, while total number of citations can
be disproportionately affected by participation in a single publication
of major influence. The h-index is intended to measure
simultaneously the quality and sustainability of scientific output, as
well as, to some extent, the diversity of scientific research. The h-index
is much less affected by methodological papers proposing successful new
techniques, methods or approximations, which can be extremely highly
cited. For example, one of the most cited condensed matter theorists,
John P. Perdew, has been very successful in devising new approximations
within the widely used density functional theory.
He has published 3 papers cited more than 5000 times and 2 cited more
than 4000 times. Several thousand papers utilizing the density
functional theory are published every year, most of them citing at
least one paper of J.P. Perdew. His total citation index is close to 39
000, while his h-index is large, 51, but not unique. In contrast, the condensed-matter theorist with the highest h-index (94), Marvin L. Cohen, has a lower citation index of 35 000. One can argue that in this case the h-index reflects the broader impact of Cohen's papers in solid-state physics due to his larger number of highly-cited papers.

[edit] Criticism

There are a number of situations in which $h$ may provide misleading information about a scientist's output:[7]

The h-index is bounded by the total number of publications.
This means that scientists with a short career are at an inherent
disadvantage, regardless of the importance of their discoveries. For
example, Évariste Galois' h-index is 2, and will remain so forever. Had Albert Einstein died in early 1906, his h-index
would be stuck at 4 or 5, despite his being widely acknowledged as one
of the most important physicists, even considering only his
publications to that date.

The h-index does not consider the context of
citations. For example, citations in a paper are often made simply to
flesh-out an introduction, otherwise having no other significance to
the work. h also does not resolve other contextual instances:
citations made in a negative context and citations made to fraudulent
or retracted work. (This is true for other metrics using citations, not
just for the h-index.)

The h-index does not account for confounding factors. These
include the practice of "gratuitous authorship", which is still common
in some research cultures, the so-called Matthew effect, and the favorable citation bias associated with review articles.

The h-index has been found to have slightly less predictive
accuracy and precision than the simpler measure of mean citations per
paper.[8] However, this finding was contradicted by another study.[9]

The h-index is a natural number and thus lacks discriminatory power. Ruane and Tol therefore propose a rational h-index that interpolates between h and h+1.[10]

While the h-index de-emphasizes singular successful
publications in favor of sustained productivity, it may do so too
strongly. Two scientists may have the same h-index, say, $h = 30$ ,
but one has 20 papers that have been cited more than 1000 times and the
other has none. Clearly scientific output of the former is more
valuable. Several recipes to correct for that have been proposed, such
as the g-index, but none has gained universal support.

The h-index is affected by limitations in citation data
bases. Some automated searching processes find citations to papers
going back many years, while others find only recent papers or
citations. This issue is less important for those whose publication
record started after automated indexing began around 1990. Citation
data bases contain some citations that are not quite correct and
therefore will not properly match to the correct paper or author.

The h-index does not account for the number of authors of a
paper. If the impact of a paper is the number of citations it receives,
it might be logical to divide that impact by the number of authors
involved. (Some authors will have contributed more than others, but in
the absence of information on contributions, the simplest assumption is
to divide credit equally.) Not taking into account the number of
authors could allow gaming the h-index and other similar
indices: for example, two equally capable researchers could agree to
share authorship on all their papers, thus increasing each of their h-indices. Even in the absence of such explicit gaming, the h-index and similar indices tend to favor fields with larger groups, e.g. experimental over theoretical.

[edit] Comparison with other metrics

The $h$ -index grows as citations
accumulate and thus it depends on the 'academic age' of a researcher.
Using papers published within a particular time period, e.g within the
last 10 years, would allow to measure the current productivity as
opposed to the lifetime achievement.

Various proposals to modify the h-index in order to emphasize different features have been made.[11][12][13][14]

[edit] See also

Bibliometrics
impact factor
Erdős number
h-b index
g-index
Eddington number (cycling) An earlier metric of the same form.

[edit] References

^ Hirsch, J. E. (2005). "An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output". PNAS 102 (46): 16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
^ Peterson, Ivars (December 2, 2005). "Rating Researchers", Science News Online.
^ "Physicist Proposes New Way to Rank Scientific Output". Retrieved on 2008-07-03.
^ Meho,
L. I.; Yang, K. (2007). "Impact of Data Sources on Citation Counts and
Rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar".
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (13): 2105–2125. doi:10.1002/asi.20677.
^ Jacsó, Péter (2006). "Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs". Online Information Review 30 (2): 188–193. doi:10.1108/14684520610659201.
^ Sanderson, Mark (2008). "Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 (7): 1184–1190. doi:10.1002/asi.20771.
^ Wendl, Michael (2007). "H-index: however ranked, citations need context". Nature 449 (7161): 403. doi:10.1038/449403b.
^ Sune Lehmann, Andrew D. Jackson, Benny E. Lautrup (2006). "Measures for measures". Nature 444 (7122): 1003–4. doi:10.1038/4441003a. PMID 17183295.
^ Hirsch J. E. (2007). "Does the h-index have predictive power?". PNAS 104: 19193-19198. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707962104.
^ Frances Ruane & Richard S. J. Tol (2008). "Rational (successive) h -indices: An application to economics in the Republic of Ireland". Scientometrics 75 (2): 395–405. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1869-7.
^ Sidiropoulos,
Antonis; Katsaros, Dimitrios; Manolopoulos, Yannis (2007). "Generalized
Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks". Scientometrics 72 (2): 253–280. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1722-z.
^ g-index
^ Jayant S Vaidya (December 2005). "V-index: A fairer index to quantify an individual's research output capacity". BMJ 331: 339-c-1340-c.
^ Katsaros D., Sidiropoulos A., Manolopous Y., (2007), Age Decaying H-Index for Social Network of Citations in Proceedings of Workshop on Social Aspects of the Web Poznan, Poland, April 27, 2007

[edit] External links

[edit] Publications related to h-index

Ball, Philip (2005). "Index aims for fair ranking of scientists". Nature 436 (7053): 900. doi:10.1038/436900a.
Kelly, C. D.; Jennions, M. D. (2006). "The h index and career assessment by numbers". Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 21 (4): 167–70. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.005. PMID 16701079.
Lehmann, S.; Jackson, A. D.; Lautrup, B. E. (2006). "Measures for measures". Nature 444 (7122): 1003–4. doi:10.1038/4441003a. PMID 17183295.
Sidiropoulos, Antonis; Katsaros,
Dimitrios; Manolopoulos, Yannis (2007). "Generalized Hirsch h-index for
disclosing latent facts in citation networks". Scientometrics 72 (2): 253–280. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1722-z.
Soler, José M. (2007). "A rational indicator of scientific creativity". Journal of Informetrics 1 (2): 123–130. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.10.004.
Symonds, M. R.; et al. (2006). "Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance". PLoS ONE 1: e127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000127. PMID 17205131.
Taber, Douglass F. (2005). "Quantifying Publication Impact". Science 309 (5744): 2166a. doi:10.1126/science.309.5744.2166a.

[edit] Computing the h-index

Quadsearch calculates an estimate of h on Google Scholar
A MATLAB script to compute the h-index
Publish or Perish calculates various statistics, including the h-index and the g-index using Google Scholar data
The HView visualizer showing a sorted histogram of citations showing the h-number as the biggest square included in the histogram
Yet another web script highlighting the article(s) to cite to raise the h-number

[edit] Lists of h-indices

A long list of chemists with high h-index values
The H-index for computer science
H values for Stanford p-chem professors from "The Everyday Scientist"
H index for Journals and Countries

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index"

Categories: Bibliometrics | Academic publishing | Index numbers