IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/akt/journl/v15y2020i1p55-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modifications of the H-Index for Differentiated Assessment of the Results of Scientists’ Creative Activity

Author

Listed:
  • Petr Gerasimenko

    (Emperor Alexander I St. Petersburg State Transport University)

Abstract

Introduction. The article proposes an algorithm for evaluating the creative activity of a scientist based on citations of his/her publications, developed based on the h-index widely used in practice. The proposed algorithm will make it possible to take all citations of the author’s publications into account, as well as whether a significant number of the author’s works is available based on the number of citations and the intensity of the author’s work. The relevance of the goal of development of this algorithm is stipulated by the material demand for creation of an improved approach to the assessment of the effectiveness of publication activity of scientists as compared to the h-index. Methods. The work uses the approach of systematization of the total array of citations by dividing it into a basic citations array determined by the h-index and significant and intensive arrays. The obtained arrays formed the basis for the creation of three indexes: gh – the basic publication index, hp – the index of the author’s intensive work, and ghp – the complex index. The indexes are determined as Euclidean norms from the introduced citation arrays. Results and Discussion. The generated indices make it possible to perform a differentiated assessment of the publication work of scientists in a team and rank them at a higher quality level. The work uses the example of building of a rating of a team of authors generated by a sample from the Russian Science Citation Index using the h-index and the gh-index. It has been shown that the proposed approach is more effective compared to the h-index. The proposed differentiated approach to assessment of the rating positions of authors of publications in a creative team is based on a simple calculation and comparison of modified indices. Conclusion. Based on the introduced indexes, it is advisable to assess the publication activity of a scientist based on three ratings, namely: 1) rating of significant works; 2) rating of work intensity; 3) complex rating comprising both of the above. When establishing the rating, preference is to be given to the basic publication index. If the basic indices are equal, the higher complex index shall be given priority. For scientists with a large number of publications but an insignificant number of citations, it is advisable to establish the rating based only on the gp-index.

Suggested Citation

  • Petr Gerasimenko, 2020. "Modifications of the H-Index for Differentiated Assessment of the Results of Scientists’ Creative Activity," Science Governance and Scientometrics Journal, Russian Research Institute of Economics, Politics and Law in Science and Technology (RIEPL), vol. 15(1), pages 55-71, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:akt:journl:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:55-71
    DOI: 10.33873/2686-6706.2020.15-1.55-71
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://en.sie-journal.ru/assets/uploads/issues/2020/1(35)_03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.33873/2686-6706.2020.15-1.55-71?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. E. Hirsch, 2010. "An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 741-754, December.
    2. Aleksandr Gusev & Ekaterina Doronina & Ivan Vershinin & Vadim Malahov, 2018. "Monitoring and assessment of scientific performance: foreign experience and Russian practice," Science Governance and Scientometrics Journal, Russian Research Institute of Economics, Politics and Law in Science and Technology (RIEPL), vol. 13(1), pages 65-91, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Antonio Fernandez-Cano & Inés M. Fernández-Guerrero, 2017. "A multivariate model for evaluating emergency medicine journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 991-1003, February.
    2. Yingjin Song & Ruiyi Li & Guanyi Chen & Beibei Yan & Lei Zhong & Yuxin Wang & Yihang Li & Jinlei Li & Yingxiu Zhang, 2021. "Bibliometric Analysis of Current Status on Bioremediation of Petroleum Contaminated Soils during 2000–2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Deming Lin & Tianhui Gong & Wenbin Liu & Martin Meyer, 2020. "An entropy-based measure for the evolution of h index research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2283-2298, December.
    4. Gao, Qiang & Liang, Zhentao & Wang, Ping & Hou, Jingrui & Chen, Xiuxiu & Liu, Manman, 2021. "Potential index: Revealing the future impact of research topics based on current knowledge networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    5. Ash Mohammad Abbas, 2011. "Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 107-131, July.
    6. Jiang Wu, 2013. "Geographical knowledge diffusion and spatial diversity citation rank," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 181-201, January.
    7. Daniele Checchi & Alberto Ciolfi & Gianni De Fraja & Irene Mazzotta & Stefano Verzillo, 2021. "Have you Read This? An Empirical Comparison of the British REF Peer Review and the Italian VQR Bibliometric Algorithm," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(352), pages 1107-1129, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Lathabai, Hiran H., 2020. "ψ-index: A new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    10. Claudiu Herteliu & Marcel Ausloos & Bogdan Vasile Ileanu & Giulia Rotundo & Tudorel Andrei, 2017. "Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Serge Galam, 2011. "Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 365-379, October.
    12. Ausloos, Marcel, 2015. "Coherent measures of the impact of co-authors in peer review journals and in proceedings publications," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 438(C), pages 568-578.
    13. Ghousia Jabeen & Gurunadham Goli & Kafila & R. Gobinath, 2024. "A bibliometric review on gender equity in human resource management," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Liu, Yunmei & Yang, Liu & Chen, Min, 2021. "A new citation concept: Triangular citation in the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    15. 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.
    16. Rotundo, Giulia, 2014. "Black–Scholes–Schrödinger–Zipf–Mandelbrot model framework for improving a study of the coauthor core score," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 404(C), pages 296-301.
    17. Luca Cagliero & Paolo Garza & Mohammad Reza Kavoosifar & Elena Baralis, 2018. "Discovering cross-topic collaborations among researchers by exploiting weighted association rules," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1273-1301, August.
    18. Du Jian & Tang Xiaoli, 2013. "Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 277-295, July.
    19. Hassan Bougrine, 2014. "Subfield effects on the core of coauthors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1047-1064, February.
    20. 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.

    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:akt:journl:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:55-71. 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: Lubov Pudovkina (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://riep.ru/ .

    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.