medigraphic.com
ISSN 2307-2113 (Electronic)
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED)

2012, Number 3

<< Back

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2012; 23 (3)

H-index and Google Scholar: a inclusive scienciometrics symbiosis

Silva ALC

Language: Spanish
References: 51
Page: 308-322
PDF size: 204.12 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The paper shows how the dominant journal impact factor has arrived to its present features and discuss the degree in which this metric is prone to be manipulated and misused, as opposed to the prescribed utilization by Thomson Reuter, the corporation in charge of its official computation. Hirsch's H-index and a large family of related indicators seek to give a single number that in some sense summarizes an author's research output and its impact. The free public availability of information offered by Google Scholar allows citation counts, and analyses based thereon, to be performed and duplicated by anyone. Combining H-index with this information provides an avenue for more transparency and supply an extraordinary opportunity to develop a fairer scienciometric analysis, specially when languages other than English are involved.


REFERENCES

  1. Garfield E, Sher IH. New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation. 1963;14(3):195-201.

  2. Martyn J, Gilchrist A. An evaluation of British scientific journals (Aslib Occasional Publication, no. 1). London: Aslib, 1968.

  3. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science. 1972; 178(4060):4719.

  4. Archambault É, Larivière V. History of journal impact factor: contingencies and consequences, Scientometrics. 2009;79(3):639-53.

  5. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be use for evaluating research. British Medical Journal. 1977;314:497-507.

  6. Moed HF, Van Leeuwen TN. Improving the accuracy of Institute for Scientific Informations journal impact factors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1995;46(6):461-7.

  7. Glänzel W, Moed HF. Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics. 2002;53(2):171-93.

  8. Aréchaga JM. Las revistas profesionales como claves para el desarrollo de la ciencia, la medicina y la tecnología en España. Panace@. 2005;4(19).

  9. Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E. Show me the data. J Cell Biol. 2007;179(6): 10911092.

  10. Smith R. Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. British Medical Journal. 1997;314(7079):463.

  11. Metze K. Bureaucrats, researchers, editors, and the impact factor - a vicious circle that is detrimental to science. Clinics. 2010;65(10):937-40.

  12. Hernán MA. Epidemiologists (of all people) should question journal impact factors. Epidemiology. 2008;19:3668.

  13. PLoS Medicine Editors. The impact factor game: It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Medicine; 2006:3:291.

  14. Brumback RA. Impact Factor: Let's Be Unreasonable! Epidemiology. 2009;20 (6):932-3.

  15. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. J Am Med Associat. 2007;295(1):90-3.

  16. Arencibia JR, Moya F. La evaluación de la investigación científica: una aproximación desde la perspectiva cienciométrica. Acimed. 2008;17(4) [citado 14 de septiembre de 2012]. Disponible en .

  17. Silva LC. Un indicador obsoleto pero lamentablemente vigente. Enfermería Clínica. 2011;21:59.

  18. Gugliotta G. The genius index: One scientists crusade to rewrite reputation rules. Wired Magazine. 2009;17(6):92-5.

  19. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2005;102(46):1656972.

  20. Vieira ES, Gomes JA. Research impact indicator for institutions. J Informetr. 2010;4(4):581-90.

  21. Egghe L. Theory and practice of the g-index, Scientometrics. 2006;69(1):131-52.

  22. Rousseau R. New developments related to the Hirsch index. Science Focus. 2006;1(4):235.

  23. Jin B. H-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus. 2006;1(1):8-9.

  24. Kosmulski M. A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter. 2006;2(3):4-6.

  25. Sidiropoulos A, Katsaros D, Manolopoulos Y. Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics. 2007;72(2):253-80.

  26. Jin BH, Liang LM, Rousseau R, Egghe L. The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin. 2007;52(6):855-63.

  27. Anderson TR, Hankin KSH, Killworth PD Beyond the Durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output. Scientometrics. 2008; 76(3):577-88.

  28. Zhang CT. The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for excess citations. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(5):5429.

  29. García MA. A multidimensional extension to Hirsch's h-index. Scientometrics. 2009;81(3):779-85.

  30. Brown RJC. A simple method for excluding self-citation from the h-index: the bindex. Online Information Review. 2009;33(6):1129-36.

  31. Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Herrera E, Herrera F. q2-Index: Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Based on the Number and Impact of Papers in the Hirsch Core. J Informetr. 2009;4(1):23-8.

  32. Rousseau R, Ye FY. A proposal for a dynamic h-type index. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2008;59(11):1853-5.

  33. Glanzel W, Schubert A. Hirsch-type characteristics of the tail of distributions. The generalised h-index. J Informetr. 2009;4(1)118-23.

  34. Kosmulski M. Hirsch-type index of international recognition. J Informetr. 2010;4(3):351-7.

  35. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy. J Informetr. 2010;4(3):407-14.

  36. Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera E, Herrera F. hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g- indices. Scientometrics. 2010;82(2):391-400.

  37. Namazi MR, Fallahzadeh MK. N-index: A novel and easily-calculable parameter for comparison of researchers working in different scientific fields. Ind J Dermatol, Venereol Leprol. 2010;76(3):229-30.

  38. Harzing AW, van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 2008;8(1):6173.

  39. Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index? - A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2008;74(2):257-71.

  40. Jacso P. The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databases. Online Information Review. 2008;32(2):266-83.

  41. Braun T, Glänzel W, Schubert A. A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics. 2006;69(1):16973.

  42. Delgado E, Cabezas A. Google Scholar Metrics: una herramienta poco fiable para la evaluación de revistas científicas. El profesional de la información. 2012;21(4):419-27.

  43. Shrager J, Billman D, Convertino G, Massar JP, Pirolli P. Soccer science and the Bayes community: Exploring the cognitive implications of modern scientific communication. Topics in Cognitive Science. 2009;2(1):53-72.

  44. Silva LC. La industria farmacéutica y los obstáculos para el flujo oportuno de información: consecuencias para la salud pública. Rev Cubana Sal Públ. 2011;37(Supl. 5):631-43.

  45. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;358:25260.

  46. Baldock C, Ma RMS, Orton CG. The h-index is the best measure of a scientist's research productivity. Medical Physics. 2009;36(4):10435.

  47. Glänzel W. On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index, Science Focus. 2006;1(1):10-11.

  48. Björk BC, Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine. 2012;10:73.

  49. Arencibia JR. Acimed en Scholar Google: un análisis de citas de la Revista Cubana de los Profesionales de la Información y la Comunicación en la Salud [Internet]. ACIMED. 2008;18(1) [citado 5 de septiembre de 2012]. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1024 - 94352008000700003&lng=es&nrm=iso.

  50. Google Scholar Metrics [Internet]. 2012 [citado 20 de agosto de 2012]. Disponible en: http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=es

  51. Testa J. Playing the system puts self-citation's impact under review. Nature. 2008;455:729.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com