Search results

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to present a simple, novel method for excluding self‐citation from h‐index values – the b‐index.

The work described assumes that relative self‐citation rate is constant across an author's publications and that the citation profile of a set of papers follows a Zipfian distribution, and from this derives a simple mathematical expression for excluding self‐citation from h‐index values.

It is shown that this new index is simply equal to the integer value of the author's external citation rate (non‐self‐citations) to the power three quarters, multiplied by their h‐index. This value, called the b‐index, does not require an extensive analysis of the self‐citation rates of individual papers to produce, and appropriately shows the biggest numerical decreases, as compared to the corresponding h‐index, for very high self‐citers.

The method presented allows the user to assess quickly and simply the effects of self‐citation on an author's h‐index.

This paper provides a simple and novel method for excluding self‐citation from the h‐index and should be of interest to those interested in bibliometrics and databases of scientific literature.

The Taiwan Humanities Citation Index (THCI) is Taiwan's effort to construct a search, research, and evaluation tool for research in the arts and humanities. This article describes the design, framework, features, and policies and rules of the THCI. Citation analysis has been regarded as a systematic way to investigate research developments and trends. Since the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) indexes mostly English journals, the THCI could become an auxiliary citation index of the A&HCI for Taiwanese researchers.

This paper ranks university faculties, accounting doctoral programs, individual behavioral accounting researchers, and the most influential articles based on Google Scholar citations to publications in Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (AABR). All articles published in AABR in its first 15 volumes are included and four citation metrics are used. The paper identifies the articles, authors, faculties, and doctoral programs that made the greatest contribution to the development of AABR. Such an analysis provides a useful basis for understanding the direction the journal has taken and how it has contributed to the literature (Meyer & Rigsby, 2001). The h-index and m-index for AABR indicates it compares favorably among its peers. Potential doctoral students with an interest in behavioral accounting research, “new” accounting faculty with an interest in behavioral accounting research, current behavioral accounting research faculty, department chairs, deans, and other administrators will find these results informative.

Five years ago a friend whose business has the word “women” in its title began referring to me requests she received for information about a large area encompassing women's issues, herstory, Women Studies, feminism, nonsexist education, nontraditional employment, reentry persons, comparable worth, health, portrayal of women in literature, scientific developments by and affecting women, etc. They came from feminist and sexist people of all ages throughout the world. Most, however, were American women attempting to bridge the information gap and to counteract misinformation and lack of information about and affecting females. This eventually evolved into a non‐profit service through which I responded directly to inquiries.

Given the magnitude of the literature, a researcher must be selective of research papers and publications in general. In other words, only papers that meet strict standards of academic integrity and adhere to reliable and credible sources should be referenced. The purpose of this paper is to approach this issue from the prism of scientometrics according to the following research questions: Is it necessary to judge the quality of scientific production? How do we evaluate scientific production? What are the tools to be used in evaluation?

This paper presents a comparative study of scientometric evaluation practices and tools. A systematic literature review is conducted based on articles published in the field of scientometrics between 1951 and 2022. To analyze data, the authors performed three different aspects of analysis: usage analysis based on classification and comparison between the different scientific evaluation practices, type and level analysis based on classifying different scientometric indicators according to their types and application levels and similarity analysis based on studying the correlation between different quantitative metrics to identify similarity between them.

This comparative study leads to classify different scientific evaluation practices into externalist and internalist approaches. The authors categorized the different quantitative metrics according to their types (impact, production and composite indicators), their levels of application (micro, meso and macro) and their use (internalist and externalist). Moreover, the similarity analysis has revealed a high correlation between several scientometric indicators such as author h-index, author publications, citations and journal citations.

The interest in this study lies deeply in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of research groups and guides their actions. This evaluation contributes to the advancement of scientific research and to the motivation of researchers. Moreover, this paper can be applied as a complete in-depth guide to help new researchers select appropriate measurements to evaluate scientific production. The selection of evaluation measures is made according to their types, usage and levels of application. Furthermore, our analysis shows the similarity between the different indicators which can limit the overuse of similar measures.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Research assessment based on proposed approaches is likely to lead to greater satisfaction among those evaluated and higher confidence in the evaluation criteria.

P- and V-indexes are original. Application of AHP for multi-criteria assessment of research through citation analysis is also a new idea.

ResearchIndex is a recently‐announced service that can identify and index citations found within Web‐based electronic publications without human intervention. In addition to indexing electronic journals, ResearchIndex can automatically index non‐journal literature including reports, conference papers, and preprints, among other types of grey literature. It offers users the opportunity to view the textual context of a candidate cited work and provides access to the full‐text of any incorporated source document. Access to related and similar work in the ResearchIndex corpus is also made available.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation‐enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis.

The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation‐enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus.

The study suggests that citation‐enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis.

The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation‐enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which researchers display citation information and examine whether there are researcher differences in citation personal display at the level of university, country, and academic rank.

Physicists from 11 well-known universities in USA, Britain, and China were chosen as the subjects of the study. It was manually identified if physicists had mentioned citation counts, citation-based indices, or a link to Google Scholar Citations on the personal websites. A χ² test is constructed to test researcher differences in citation personal display.

Results showed that the overall proportion of citation personal display is not high (14.8 percent), with 129 of 870 physicists displaying citation. Moreover, physicists from different well-known universities indeed had a significant difference in citation personal display. Moreover, at the national level, it was noticed that physicists in well-known Chinese universities had the highest level of citation personal display, followed by Britain and the USA. Furthermore, this study also found that researchers who had the academic rank of professor had the highest citation personal display. In addition, the differences in h-index personal display by university, country, or academic rank were analyzed, and the results showed that they were not statistically significant.

This is the first study to investigate how widely researchers provide citation-based information on personal websites.

This review aims to show, broadly, how the h‐index has become a subject of widespread debate, how it has spawned many variants and diverse applications since first introduced in 2005 and some of the issues in its use.

The review drew on a range of material published in 1990 or so sources published since 2005. From these sources, a number of themes were identified and discussed ranging from the h‐index's advantages to which citation database might be selected for its calculation.

The analysis shows how the h‐index has quickly established itself as a major subject of interest in the field of bibliometrics. Study of the index ranges from its mathematical underpinning to a range of variants perceived to address the indexes' shortcomings. The review illustrates how widely the index has been applied but also how care must be taken in its application.

The use of bibliometric indicators to measure research performance continues, with the h‐index as its latest addition. The use of the h‐index, its variants and many applications to which it has been put are still at the exploratory stage. The review shows the breadth and diversity of this research and the need to verify the veracity of the h‐index by more studies.