IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v109y2016i3d10.1007_s11192-016-2122-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identification of conversion factor for completing-h index for the field of mathematics

Author

Listed:
  • Samreen Ayaz

    (Capital University of Science & Technology)

  • Muhammad Tanvir Afzal

    (Capital University of Science & Technology)

Abstract

In 2005 Hirsch introduced h-index to evaluate the research output of researchers. This had initiated a debate in the scientific community. Many researchers have evaluated the feasibility of h-index in different scientific domains. Some remained successful while others criticized the effectiveness of h-index in the domains they evaluated. After a decade of this proposal, Dienes critically evaluated the original h-index and have claimed that h index lacks something intrinsic in its definition. Subsequently Dienes introduced a conversion factor based on entire community of one domain to complete the definition of h index. Dienes has not evaluated the conversion factor on actual data; rather they have just proposed mathematical formulations. The aim of our research is to calculate that factor for the field of Mathematics and then after computing completing-h value for all the authors in this community, we have compared our results with h-index (original) and g-index values considering award winners as benchmark. We found out that complete-h contributes positively and shows comparatively better results than h-index and g-index. In top 1000 authors ranked according to these indices 95 award winners were found in complete-h, 76 were found in h-index and 64 were found when authors were ranked according to g-index.

Suggested Citation

  • Samreen Ayaz & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2016. "Identification of conversion factor for completing-h index for the field of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1511-1524, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2122-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2122-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2122-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-2122-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2008. "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," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(5), pages 830-837, March.
    2. Anne-Wil Harzing, 2013. "A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1057-1075, March.
    3. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2016. "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 787-804, February.
    4. Joost C. F. Winter & Amir A. Zadpoor & Dimitra Dodou, 2014. "The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1547-1565, February.
    5. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Hug, Sven E. & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2011. "A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 346-359.
    6. Serge Galam, 2011. "Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 365-379, October.
    7. Michael Schreiber, 2015. "A variant of the h-index to measure recent performance," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(11), pages 2373-2380, November.
    8. Dunaiski, Marcel & Visser, Willem & Geldenhuys, Jaco, 2016. "Evaluating paper and author ranking algorithms using impact and contribution awards," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 392-407.
    9. Schreiber, M. & Malesios, C.C. & Psarakis, S., 2012. "Exploratory factor analysis for the Hirsch index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-358.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Faiza Qayyum & Harun Jamil & Naeem Iqbal & DoHyeun Kim & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2022. "Toward potential hybrid features evaluation using MLP-ANN binary classification model to tackle meaningful citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6471-6499, November.
    2. Samreen Ayaz & Nayyer Masood & Muhammad Arshad Islam, 2018. "Predicting scientific impact based on h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 993-1010, March.
    3. Madiha Ameer & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2019. "Evaluation of h-index and its qualitative and quantitative variants in Neuroscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 653-673, November.
    4. Qurat-ul Ain & Hira Riaz & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2019. "Evaluation of h-index and its citation intensity based variants in the field of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 187-211, April.
    5. Muhammad Salman & Mohammad Masroor Ahmed & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2021. "Assessment of author ranking indices based on multi-authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4153-4172, May.
    6. Faiza Qayyum & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2019. "Identification of important citations by exploiting research articles’ metadata and cue-terms from content," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 21-43, January.
    7. Mingyang Wang & Jiaqi Zhang & Shijia Jiao & Xiangrong Zhang & Na Zhu & Guangsheng Chen, 2020. "Important citation identification by exploiting the syntactic and contextual information of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2109-2129, December.
    8. Muhammad Raheel & Samreen Ayaz & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2018. "Evaluation of h-index, its variants and extensions based on publication age & citation intensity in civil engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1107-1127, March.
    9. Deise Deolindo Silva & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Dispersion measures for h-index: a study of the Brazilian researchers in the field of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 1983-2011, March.
    10. Rizwan Ghani & Faiza Qayyum & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal & Hermann Maurer, 2019. "Comprehensive evaluation of h-index and its extensions in the domain of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 809-822, March.
    11. Abdulrahman A. Alshdadi & Muhammad Usman & Madini O. Alassafi & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal & Rayed AlGhamdi, 2023. "Formulation of rules for the scientific community using deep learning," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1825-1852, March.
    12. Muhammad Usman & Ghulam Mustafa & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2021. "Ranking of author assessment parameters using Logistic Regression," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 335-353, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qurat-ul Ain & Hira Riaz & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2019. "Evaluation of h-index and its citation intensity based variants in the field of mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 187-211, April.
    2. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    3. Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru, 2016. "A theoretical evaluation of Hirsch-type bibliometric indicators confronted with extreme self-citation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 552-566.
    4. M. Ausloos, 2013. "A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 895-909, June.
    5. Georgios Stoupas & Antonis Sidiropoulos & Antonia Gogoglou & Dimitrios Katsaros & Yannis Manolopoulos, 2018. "Rainbow ranking: an adaptable, multidimensional ranking method for publication sets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 147-160, July.
    6. James C. Ryan, 2016. "A validation of the individual annual h-index (hIa): application of the hIa to a qualitatively and quantitatively different sample," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 577-590, October.
    7. Martin-Martin, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Harzing, Anne-Wil & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2017. "Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 152-163.
    8. Lorna Wildgaard & Jesper W. Schneider & Birger Larsen, 2014. "A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 125-158, October.
    9. Ausloos, M., 2015. "Assessing the true role of coauthors in the h-index measure of an author scientific impact," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 422(C), pages 136-142.
    10. John Mingers & Jesse R. O’Hanley & Musbaudeen Okunola, 2017. "Using Google Scholar institutional level data to evaluate the quality of university research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1627-1643, December.
    11. Madiha Ameer & Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, 2019. "Evaluation of h-index and its qualitative and quantitative variants in Neuroscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 653-673, November.
    12. Sidiropoulos, A. & Gogoglou, A. & Katsaros, D. & Manolopoulos, Y., 2016. "Gazing at the skyline for star scientists," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 789-813.
    13. Muzammil Tahira & Rose Alinda Alias & Aryati Bakri & A. Abrizah, 2016. "Meso-level institutional and journal related indices for Malaysian engineering research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 521-535, May.
    14. Moed, Henk F. & Bar-Ilan, Judit & Halevi, Gali, 2016. "A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 533-551.
    15. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    16. Biró, Tamás S. & Telcs, András & Józsa, Máté & Néda, Zoltán, 2023. "Gintropic scaling of scientometric indexes," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 618(C).
    17. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    18. Zhenbin Yan & Qiang Wu & Xingchen Li, 2016. "Do Hirsch-type indices behave the same in assessing single publications? An empirical study of 29 bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1815-1833, December.
    19. Lathabai, Hiran H., 2020. "ψ-index: A new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    20. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas, 2017. "Microsoft Academic is one year old: the Phoenix is ready to leave the nest," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1887-1894, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:109:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2122-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.