The Hirsch h Index in a Non-Mainstream Area: Methodology of the Behavioral Sciences in Spain

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 833-849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel A. García-Pérez
Keyword(s):  
Research Performance ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Behavioral Sciences ◽  
Academic Variables ◽  
Age Bias ◽  
H Index ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Gender And Age ◽  
Reference Tool

The h index has advantages over journal impact factors for assessing the research performance of individuals, and it is becoming a reference tool for career assessment that is starting to be considered by some agencies as an aid in decisions for promotion, allocation, and funding. The h index has been reported to have adequate properties as a measure of the research accomplishments of individuals in areas where h values are usually high (i.e., at or above 40), but some concerns have been raised that its validity in other non-mainstream research areas is suspect. This paper presents data from an exhaustive computation and analysis of h indices for 204 faculty members in the area of Methodology of the Behavioral Sciences in Spain, an area where h indices tend to be low worldwide. The results indicate that the h index is substantially increased by self-citations and that the average h of full professors is not meaningfully larger than the average h of associate professors. Other interesting relations between h indices and demographic and academic variables are described, including the gender and age bias of h. In this field, but perhaps also in other fields where the average h is low, little justification is found for the use of the h index as a fair measure of research performance that can aid in funding or promotion decisions.

The integrated interventional radiology match: a bibliometric analysis of matched first-year residents

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishnu Chandra ◽  
Neil Jain ◽  
Pratik Shukla ◽  
Ethan Wajswol ◽  
Sohail Contractor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interventional Radiology ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Index Number ◽  
Research Information ◽  
H Index ◽  
Scopus Database ◽  
Journal Impact

Objectives: The integrated interventional radiology (IR) residency has only been established relatively recently as compared to other specialties. Although some preliminary information is available based on survey data five, no comprehensive bibliometric analysis documenting the importance of the quantity and quality of research in applying to an integrated-IR program currently exists. As the first bibliometric analysis of matched IR residents, the data obtained from this study fills a gap in the literature. Materials and Methods: A list of matched residents from the 2018 integrated-IR match were identified by contacting program directors. The Scopus database was used to search for resident research information, including total publications, first-author publications, radiology-related publications, and h-indices. Each matriculating program was categorized into one of five tiers based on the average faculty Hirsch index (h-index). Results: Sixty-three programs and 117 matched residents were identified and reviewed on the Scopus database. For the 2018 cycle, 274 total publications were produced by matched applicants, with a mean of 2.34 ± 0.41 publication per matched applicant. The average h-index for matched applicants was 0.96 ± 0.13. On univariate analysis, the number of radiology-related publications, highest journal impact factor, and h-index were all associated with an increased likelihood of matching into a higher tier program (P < 0.05). Other research variables displayed no statistical significance. All applicants with PhDs matched into tier one programs. Conclusions: Research serves as an important element in successfully matching into an integrated-IR residency. h-index, number of radiology-related manuscripts, and highest journal impact factors are all positively associated with matching into a higher tier program.

Units of measurement

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
H Index ◽  
Units Of Measurement ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Eugene Garfield ◽  
Citation Metrics

This chapter discusses how performance is measured in science, such as through the role of citation metrics. Next, the chapter discusses the pros and cons of bibliometric indexes, and of ‘impact factor’, which was introduced by Eugene Garfield in 1955 but not widely used until twenty years later. The various ways that journals attempt to improve their impact factors, and how this will affect science, are also examined. Besides impact factor, the role played by indicators in evaluating scientists, such as the recently introduced h-index, is explored. Finally, fashions and trends in science are touched upon, illustrated with personal anecdotes from the author.

scholarly journals A Bibliometric Evaluation of the Top 100 Cited Dimethyl Fumarate Articles

Molecules ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 1085
Author(s):  
Francisco Javier García-Fernández ◽  
Alba Estela García-Fernández ◽  
Ichiro Ikuta ◽  
Eduardo Nava ◽  
Julian Solis García del Pozo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dimethyl Fumarate ◽  
Original Research ◽  
H Index ◽  
Early Access ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Time Period ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Immunomodulatory Drug ◽  
Number Of Citations

Dimethyl fumarate is a cytoprotective and immunomodulatory drug used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. We performed a bibliometric study examining the characteristics and trends of the top 100 cited articles that include dimethyl fumarate in the title. On 21 September 2020 we carried out an electronic search in the Web of Science (WOS), seeking articles that include the following terms within the title: dimethyl fumarate, BG-12, or Tecfidera. To focus our investigation on original research, we refined the search to include only articles, early access, others, case report, and clinical trials. We obtained a total of 1115 items, which were cited 7169 times, had a citation density of 6.43 citations/item, and an h-index of 40. Around 2010, there was a jump in the number of published articles per year, rising from 5 articles/year up to 12 articles/year. We sorted all the items by the number of citations and selected the top 100 most cited (T100). The T100 had 4164 citations, with a density of 37 citations/year and contained 16 classic research articles. They were published between 1961 and 2018; the years 2010–2018 amassed nearly 80% of the T100. We noted 17 research areas with articles in the T100. Of these, the number one ranking went to neurosciences/neurology with 39 articles, and chemistry ranked second on the T100 list with 14 items. We noticed that the percentage of articles belonging to different journals changed depending on the time period. Chemistry held the highest number of papers during 1961–2000, while pharmacology andneurosciences/neurology led the 2001–2018 interval. A total of 478 authors from 145 institutions and 25 countries were included in the T100 ranking. The paper by Gold R et al. was the most successful with 14 articles, 1.823 citations and a density of 140.23 citations/year. The biotechnological company Biogen led the T100 list with 20 articles. With 59 published articles, the USA was the leading country in publications. We concluded that this study analyzed the use of and research on dimethyl fumarate from a different perspective, which will allow the readership (expert or not) to understand the relevance of classic and recent literature on this topic.

scholarly journals How do Academic Faculty Members Perceive the Effect of Teaching Surveys Completed by Students on Appointment and Promotion Processes at Academic Institutions? A Case Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eyal Eckhaus ◽  
Nitza Davidovitch
Keyword(s):  
Research Performance ◽  
Student Evaluations ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Senior Faculty ◽  
Statistical Research ◽  
Academic Appointment ◽  
Academic Faculty ◽  
Research Findings

It is commonly thought that the promotion of faculty members is affected by their research performance. The current study is unique in examining how academic faculty members perceive the harm or damage to academic appointment and promotion processes, as a direct effect of student evaluations as manifested in teaching surveys. One hundred eighty two questionnaires were collected from senior faculty members at academic institutions. Most respondents were from three institutions: Ariel University, Ben Gurion University, and the Jezreel Valley College. Qualitative and statistical research tools were utilized, with the goal of forming a model reflecting the effect of the harm to academic appointment and promotion processes, as perceived by faculty members. The research findings show that the lecturers find an association that causes harm to their promotion processes as a result of student evaluations. Assuming that students' voices and their opinion of teaching are important – the question is how should these evaluations be treated within promotion and appointment processes: what and whom do they indicate? Do they constitute a reliable managerial tool with which it is possible to work as a foundation for promotion and appointment processes – or should other tools be developed, unrelated to students' opinions?

H-Index and Its Variants

2019 ◽  
pp. 115-166
Keyword(s):  
Academic Career ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Subject Field ◽  
H Index ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Subject

Researchers suggest that the use of h-index for the purpose of the evaluation of research performance, its dependencies like the academic career, and the subject field of his/her publications should always be considered and taken into account for fruitful results. Also, h-index should be complemented with its variants to reduce its shortcomings. In the future, researchers should focus on testing the validity and applicability of the existing h-index variants rather than developing the new ones. Further, it is not possible to reflect the scientist's or researcher's academic contribution merely in terms of numerical values. The quantities to signify research quality should be considered with a grain of salt.

Assessment of research impact through citation analysis: a new approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prem Vrat
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Detailed Comparison ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
H Index ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
P Index

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reveal the limitations of h-index in assessing research performance through citation analysis and suggest two new indexes called prime index (P-index) and value added index (V-index), which are simpler to compute than g-index and more informative. For more serious research performance evaluation, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology is proposed. Design/methodology/approach The methodology adopted is to compare existing indexes for citation-based research assessment and identify their limitations, particularly the h-index, which is most commonly employed. It gives advantages of g-index over h-index and then proposes P-index which is simpler to compute than g-index but is more powerful in information content than g-index. Another V-index is proposed on a similar philosophy as P-index by considering total number of citations/author. For serious evaluation of finite candidates for awards/recognitions, a seven-criteria-based AHP is proposed. All new approaches have been illustrated by drawing raw data from Google scholar-powered website H-POP. Findings This paper demonstrates over-hype about use of h-index over g-index. However, it shows that newly proposed P-index is much simpler in computation than g but better than g-index. V-index is a quick way to ascertain the value added by a research scientist in multiple-authored research papers. P-index gives a value 3–4 percent higher than g and it is holistic index as it uses complete data of citations. AHP is a very powerful multi-criteria approach and it also shows g-index to be a more important factor, whereas h-index is the least important but frequently used approach. It is hoped that the findings of this paper will help in rectifying the misplaced emphasis on h-index alone. Research limitations/implications The research focus has been to suggest new faster, better methods of research assessment. However, a detailed comparison of all existing approaches with the new approaches will call for testing these over a large number of data sets. Its limitation is that it has tested the approaches on 5 academics for illustrating AHP and 20 researchers for comparing new indexes with some of the existing indexes. All existing indexes are also not covered. Practical implications The outcomes of this research may have major practical applications for research assessment of academics/researchers and rectify the imbalance in assessment by reducing over-hype on h-index. For more serious evaluation of research performance of academics, the seven-criteria AHP approach will be more comprehensive and holistic in comparison with a single criterion citation metric. One hopes that the findings of this paper will receive much attention/debate. Social implications Research assessment based on proposed approaches is likely to lead to greater satisfaction among those evaluated and higher confidence in the evaluation criteria. Originality/value P- and V-indexes are original. Application of AHP for multi-criteria assessment of research through citation analysis is also a new idea.

Is tenure justified? An experimental study of faculty beliefs about tenure, promotion, and academic freedom

2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 553-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Ceci ◽  
Wendy M. Williams ◽  
Katrin Mueller-Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Full Professor ◽  
Philosophical Foundation ◽  
Behavioral Sciences ◽  
Faculty Beliefs ◽  
Type Of Institution ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Experimental Survey

The behavioral sciences have come under attack for writings and speech that affront sensitivities. At such times, academic freedom and tenure are invoked to forestall efforts to censure and terminate jobs. We review the history and controversy surrounding academic freedom and tenure, and explore their meaning across different fields, at different institutions, and at different ranks. In a multifactoral experimental survey, 1,004 randomly selected faculty members from top-ranked institutions were asked how colleagues would typically respond when confronted with dilemmas concerning teaching, research, and wrong-doing. Full professors were perceived as being more likely to insist on having the academic freedom to teach unpopular courses, research controversial topics, and whistle-blow wrong-doing than were lower-ranked professors (even associate professors with tenure). Everyone thought that others were more likely to exercise academic freedom than they themselves were, and that promotion to full professor was a better predictor of who would exercise academic freedom than was the awarding of tenure. Few differences emerged related either to gender or type of institution, and behavioral scientists' beliefs were similar to scholars from other fields. In addition, no support was found for glib celebrations of tenure's sanctification of broadly defined academic freedoms. These findings challenge the assumption that tenure can be justified on the basis of fostering academic freedom, suggesting the need for a re-examination of the philosophical foundation and practical implications of tenure in today's academy.

Evaluation of h and h-type Indices for Research Performance at Researcher's Level

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muzammil Tahira ◽  
Abrizah Abdullah ◽  
Rose Alinda Alias ◽  
Aryati Bakri
Keyword(s):  
Performance Evaluation ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Strong Association ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Comparative Performance ◽  
New Developments ◽  
H Index ◽  
Total Citation ◽  
Evaluation Measure ◽  
Citation Metrics

Various new performance evaluation indices for impact have been proposed and studied in various contexts. This study carried out a quantitative evaluation of the case of Malaysian engineering researchers at the micro level using a scientometric approach. In order to understand the behavior of new developments, a comparative performance evaluation is carried out of h-index, a set of h-type indices along with publication and citation metrics. Findings are compared with earlier major studies. We looked for institutional h-index and researchers’ h-index scores and did not find any relationship. Exploratory Factor Analysis is employed to examine the valid categorization and to study the underlying dimensions of the studied metrics and indices. The inter-correlation among h-index, its variants, and traditional metrics is probed in detail. The h, q and g-indices along with publication and citation hold the position on ‘quantity of the productive core’, while the R index showed equal loading on both cores. For the case of Malaysian engineering researchers, two conspicuous findings are observed about the total citation and g-index. These have association with the first component named as ‘quantity of the productive core.’ Our findings strengthen the point that citation count has a strong association with the ‘quantity of the productive core’ and cannot be used as sole impact evaluation measure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document