IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00830415.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does it Matter Which Citation Tool is Used to Compare the H-Index of a Group of Highly Cited Researchers?

Author

Listed:
  • Hadi Farhadi

    (UKM - Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia)

  • Hadi Salehi

    (IAUN - Islamic Azad University, Najafabad branch)

  • Melor Md Yunus

    (UKM - Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia)

  • Aghaei Chadegani Arezoo

    (IAU, Mobarakeh - Islamic Azad University, Mobarakeh - WTIAU - West Tehran Islamic Azad University [Tehran])

  • Maryam Farhadi

    (IAU, Mobarakeh - Islamic Azad University, Mobarakeh - WTIAU - West Tehran Islamic Azad University [Tehran])

  • Masood Fooladi

    (IAU, Mobarakeh - Islamic Azad University, Mobarakeh - Department of Accounting, Mobarakeh Branch)

  • Nader Ale Ebrahim

    (UM - University of Malaya = Universiti Malaya [Kuala Lumpur, Malaisie])

Abstract

h-index retrieved by citation indexes (Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science) is used to measure the scientific performance and the research impact studies based on the number of publications and citations of a scientist. It also is easily available and may be used for performance measures of scientists, and for recruitment decisions. The aim of this study is to investigate the difference between the outputs and results from these three citation databases namely Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science based upon the h-index of a group of highly cited researchers (Nobel Prize winner scientist). The purposive sampling method was adopted to collect the required data. The results showed that there is a significant difference in the h-index between three citation indexes of Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science; the Google scholar h-index was more than the h-index in two other databases. It was also concluded that there is a significant positive relationship between h-indices based on Google scholar and Scopus. The citation indexes of Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science may be useful for evaluating h-index of scientists but they have some limitations as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Hadi Farhadi & Hadi Salehi & Melor Md Yunus & Aghaei Chadegani Arezoo & Maryam Farhadi & Masood Fooladi & Nader Ale Ebrahim, 2013. "Does it Matter Which Citation Tool is Used to Compare the H-Index of a Group of Highly Cited Researchers?," Post-Print hal-00830415, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00830415
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00830415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00830415/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau, 2006. "An informetric model for the Hirsch-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 121-129, October.
    2. Anthony F. J. Raan, 2006. "Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 491-502, June.
    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. Adrian Furnham, 2023. "Peer nominations as scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1451-1458, February.
    2. Andersen, Jens Peter & Nielsen, Mathias Wullum, 2018. "Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 950-959.
    3. Cristòfol Rovira & Lluís Codina & Frederic Guerrero-Solé & Carlos Lopezosa, 2019. "Ranking by Relevance and Citation Counts, a Comparative Study: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, WoS and Scopus," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Cristòfol Rovira & Lluís Codina & Carlos Lopezosa, 2021. "Language Bias in the Google Scholar Ranking Algorithm," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Lorna Wildgaard, 2015. "A comparison of 17 author-level bibliometric indicators for researchers in Astronomy, Environmental Science, Philosophy and Public Health in Web of Science and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 873-906, September.
    6. Jamali, Seyedh Mahboobeh & Md Zain, Ahmad Nurulazam & Samsudin, Mohd Ali & Ale Ebrahim, Nader, 2015. "Publication Trends in Physics Education: A Bibliometric study," MPRA Paper 79524, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2015.
    7. Nader Ale Ebrahim & H. Ebrahimian & Maryam Mousavi & Farzad Tahriri, 2015. "Does a Long Reference List Guarantee More Citations? Analysis of Malaysian Highly Cited and Review Papers," International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 1(3), pages 6-16, February.

    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. Rey-Martí, Andrea & Ribeiro-Soriano, Domingo & Palacios-Marqués, Daniel, 2016. "A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1651-1655.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2012. "HistCite analysis of papers constituting the h index research front," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 285-288.
    3. L. Egghe, 2011. "The influence of random removal of sources and items on the h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 363-370, August.
    4. Anna Tietze & Philip Hofmann, 2019. "The h-index and multi-author hm-index for individual researchers in condensed matter physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 171-185, April.
    5. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    6. Antonis Sidiropoulos & Dimitrios Katsaros & Yannis Manolopoulos, 2007. "Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(2), pages 253-280, August.
    7. Yuxian Liu & Ronald Rousseau, 2009. "Properties of Hirsch-type indices: the case of library classification categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(2), pages 235-248, May.
    8. J. W. Fedderke, 2013. "The objectivity of national research foundation peer review in South Africa assessed against bibliometric indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 177-206, November.
    9. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Domenico Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo, 2013. "The effect of database dirty data on h-index calculation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 1179-1188, June.
    10. van Eck, Nees Jan & Waltman, Ludo, 2008. "Generalizing the h- and g-indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 263-271.
    11. John P A Ioannidis, 2008. "Measuring Co-Authorship and Networking-Adjusted Scientific Impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-8, July.
    12. van Eck, N.J.P. & Waltman, L., 2008. "Generalizing the h- and g-indices," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-049-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau, 2021. "The h-index formalism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6137-6145, July.
    14. Egghe, L., 2008. "Examples of simple transformations of the h-index: Qualitative and quantitative conclusions and consequences for other indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 136-148.
    15. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2011. "The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 275-291.
    16. Leo Egghe, 2009. "Performance and its relation with productivity in Lotkaian systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 567-585, November.
    17. John Panaretos & Chrisovaladis Malesios, 2009. "Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 635-670, December.
    18. Alonso, S. & Cabrerizo, F.J. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F., 2009. "h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 273-289.
    19. Quentin L. Burrell, 2007. "Hirsch index or Hirsch rate? Some thoughts arising from Liang’s data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(1), pages 19-28, October.
    20. Brito, Ricardo & Navarro, Alonso Rodríguez, 2021. "The inconsistency of h-index: A mathematical analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    h-index; Scopus; Google Scholar; Web of Science; Nobel Prize; Physics; Chemistry; Economic Sciences.; Economic Sciences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A1 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics
    • H0 - Public Economics - - General
    • M0 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - General
    • M3 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • O10 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:hal-00830415. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.