IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v48y2014i1p521-545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the h-index for different fields of research using bootstrap methodology

Author

Listed:
  • C. Malesios
  • S. Psarakis

Abstract

An important disadvantage of the h-index is that typically it cannot take into account the specific field of research of a researcher. Usually sample point estimates of the average and median h-index values for the various fields are reported that are highly variable and dependent of the specific samples and it would be useful to provide confidence intervals of prediction accuracy. In this paper we apply the non-parametric bootstrap technique for constructing confidence intervals for the h-index for different fields of research. In this way no specific assumptions about the distribution of the empirical h-index are required as well as no large samples since that the methodology is based on resampling from the initial sample. The results of the analysis showed important differences between the various fields. The performance of the bootstrap intervals for the mean and median h-index for most fields seems to be rather satisfactory as revealed by the performed simulation. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Suggested Citation

  • C. Malesios & S. Psarakis, 2014. "Comparison of the h-index for different fields of research using bootstrap methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 521-545, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:48:y:2014:i:1:p:521-545
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-012-9785-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-012-9785-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-012-9785-1?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. Igor Podlubny, 2005. "Comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 64(1), pages 95-99, July.
    2. Aggelos Bletsas & John N. Sahalos, 2009. "Hirsch index rankings require scaling and higher moment," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(12), pages 2577-2586, December.
    3. Schubert, András & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2007. "A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 179-184.
    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. Maryam Okhovati & Azam Bazrafshan & Morteza Zare & Mina Moradzadeh & Ali Mohammad Mokhtari, 2016. "Research Performance Measures and the Moderating Role of Faculty Characteristics in Epidemiology," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(5), pages 1-72, May.
    2. John T. Li, 2016. "What we learn from the shifts in highly cited data from 2001 to 2014?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 57-82, July.
    3. Marcel Clermont & Johanna Krolak & Dirk Tunger, 2021. "Does the citation period have any effect on the informative value of selected citation indicators in research evaluations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1019-1047, February.
    4. Ricardo Chalmeta & Nestor J. Santos-deLeón, 2020. "Sustainable Supply Chain in the Era of Industry 4.0 and Big Data: A Systematic Analysis of Literature and Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-24, May.
    5. E. M. Murgado-Armenteros & M. Gutiérrez-Salcedo & F. J. Torres-Ruiz & M. J. Cobo, 2015. "Analysing the conceptual evolution of qualitative marketing research through science mapping analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 519-557, 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. Lucio Bertoli-Barsotti & Tommaso Lando, 2017. "A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1415-1448, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Bertoli-Barsotti, Lucio & Lando, Tommaso, 2019. "How mean rank and mean size may determine the generalised Lorenz curve: With application to citation analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 387-396.
    5. Bertoli-Barsotti, Lucio & Lando, Tommaso, 2015. "On a formula for the h-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 762-776.
    6. Hasan, Syed Akif & Subhani, Muhammad Imtiaz & Osman, Ms. Amber, 2012. "H-Index: The key to research output assessment," MPRA Paper 39097, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Gangan Prathap, 2010. "Going much beyond the Durfee square: enhancing the h T index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 149-152, July.
    8. Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2010. "The iceberg hypothesis revisited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 443-461, November.
    9. Pascal Bador & Thierry Lafouge, 2010. "Comparative analysis between impact factor and h-index for pharmacology and psychiatry journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 65-79, July.
    10. Tingcan Ma & Gui-Fang Wang & Ke Dong & Mukun Cao, 2012. "The Journal’s Integrated Impact Index: a new indicator for journal evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 649-658, February.
    11. Petridis, Konstantinos & Malesios, Chrisovalantis & Arabatzis, Garyfallos & Thanassoulis, Emmanuel, 2013. "Efficiency analysis of forestry journals: Suggestions for improving journals’ quality," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 505-521.
    12. Roberto Todeschini, 2011. "The j-index: a new bibliometric index and multivariate comparisons between other common indices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 621-639, June.
    13. Pedro Albarrán & Juan A. Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2011. "The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 385-397, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Ghassan Abdul-Majeed & Wissam Mahmood & Nasri S. M. Namer, 2021. "Measuring research performance of Iraqi universities using Scopus data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2349-2363, March.
    16. Lawrence Smolinsky & Aaron Lercher, 2012. "Citation rates in mathematics: a study of variation by subdiscipline," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 911-924, June.
    17. Chia-Lin Chang & Michael McAleer & Les Oxley, 2011. "What makes a great journal great in the sciences? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 17-40, April.
    18. Edgar D. Zanotto & Vinicius Carvalho, 2021. "Article age- and field-normalized tools to evaluate scientific impact and momentum," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2865-2883, April.
    19. Fred Y. Ye, 2009. "An investigation on mathematical models of the h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 493-498, November.
    20. Krisztina Barcza & András Telcs, 2009. "Paretian publication patterns imply Paretian Hirsch index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 513-519, November.

    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:qualqt:v:48:y:2014:i:1:p:521-545. 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.