IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i8d10.1007_s11192-023-04757-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contextual Ψ-index and its estimate for contextual productivity assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Hiran H. Lathabai

    (Amrita-CREATE, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham)

  • Thara Prabhakaran

    (University of Kerala)

Abstract

Responsible use of indicators, especially productivity assessment indicators, is always a challenge for decision-makers, especially for funding purposes. For ‘thrust-area based funding’, contextual productivity assessment is necessary and overall productivity assessment indicators are not suitable. For instance, h-index, one of the most popular overall productivity assessment indicators is known to have many limitations that hinder its usage in contextual productivity assessment, even upon its contextualized usage. Can contextualized usage of other h-type indicators such as g and Ψ be effective in contextual productivity assessment? Since the computation of these indices are not as simple as that of h, how good are the estimators of these indices in providing a rough idea about productivity in a research context? These two problems are addressed in this work by determining the resolving power of h, g, and Ψ indices and their estimators. Estimation accuracy with respect to each indicator is also verified and Ψ-index is found to be the most suitable h-type indicator for the contextualized applications and its estimate is also found to be effective for garnering a rough idea about the productivity of actors within a research context.

Suggested Citation

  • Hiran H. Lathabai & Thara Prabhakaran, 2023. "Contextual Ψ-index and its estimate for contextual productivity assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4875-4886, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04757-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04757-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04757-8
    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/s11192-023-04757-8?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. Tol, Richard S.J., 2008. "A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 149-155.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Tobias Opthof, 2010. "Scopus's source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(11), pages 2365-2369, November.
    3. Hiran H. Lathabai & Thara Prabhakaran & Manoj Changat, 2017. "Contextual productivity assessment of authors and journals: a network scientometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 711-737, February.
    4. Lathabai, Hiran H., 2020. "ψ-index: A new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    5. Susan George & Hiran H. Lathabai & Thara Prabhakaran & Manoj Changat, 2020. "A framework towards bias-free contextual productivity assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 127-157, January.
    6. Richard S. J. Tol, 2009. "The h-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(2), pages 317-324, August.
    7. Loet Leydesdorff & Filippo Radicchi & Lutz Bornmann & Claudio Castellano & Wouter Nooy, 2013. "Field-normalized impact factors (IFs): A comparison of rescaling and fractionally counted IFs," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(11), pages 2299-2309, November.
    8. Eugene Garfield, 1963. "Citation indexes in sociological and historical research," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 289-291, October.
    9. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.
    10. P. Dorta-González & M. I. Dorta-González, 2013. "Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 645-672, May.
    11. Similo Ngwenya & Nelius Boshoff, 2022. "Different manifestations of ‘context’: examples from a bibliometric study of research in Zimbabwe in Southern Africa," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3911-3933, July.
    12. Chun-Ting Zhang, 2009. "The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-4, May.
    13. Wei, Shelia X. & Tong, Tong & Rousseau, Ronald & Wang, Wanru & Ye, Fred Y., 2022. "Relations among the h-, g-, ψ-, and p-index and offset-ability," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    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. Lathabai, Hiran H., 2020. "ψ-index: A new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    2. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.
    3. 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.
    4. David L. Anderson & John Tressler, 2013. "The Relevance of the “h-” and “g-” Index to Economics in the Context of A Nation-Wide Research Evaluation Scheme: The New Zealand Case," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 81-94, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    7. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Dritan Osmani, "undated". "A note on optimal transfer schemes, stable coalition for environmental protection and joint maximization assumption," Working Papers FNU-176, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University.
    10. Ennas, Gianfranco & Di Guardo, Maria Chiara, 2015. "Features of top-rated gold open access journals: An analysis of the scopus database," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 79-89.
    11. Giovanni Anania & Annarosa Caruso, 2013. "Two simple new bibliometric indexes to better evaluate research in disciplines where publications typically receive less citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 617-631, August.
    12. Wei, Shelia X. & Tong, Tong & Rousseau, Ronald & Wang, Wanru & Ye, Fred Y., 2022. "Relations among the h-, g-, ψ-, and p-index and offset-ability," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    16. Dašić Predrag, 2015. "State and Analysis of Scientific Journals in the Field of “Economic Sciences” for the Period 1995-2014," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 53(4), pages 547-581, December.
    17. Brandão, Luana Carneiro & Soares de Mello, João Carlos Correia Baptista, 2019. "A multi-criteria approach to the h-index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 357-363.
    18. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2016. "Normalization of Mendeley reader impact on the reader- and paper-side: A comparison of the mean discipline normalized reader score (MDNRS) with the mean normalized reader score (MNRS) and bare reader ," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 776-788.
    19. Ana Paula dos Santos Rubem & Ariane Lima Moura & João Carlos Correia Baptista Soares de Mello, 2015. "Comparative analysis of some individual bibliometric indices when applied to groups of researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 1019-1035, January.
    20. Anania, Giovanni & Caruso, Annarosa, 2012. "Two New Simple Bibliometric Indexes to Better Evaluate Research in Economics," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124116, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).

    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:128:y:2023:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04757-8. 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.