IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Behavior Mining in h-index Ranking Game


  • Tagiew, Rustam
  • Ignatov, Dmitry I.


Academic rewards and honors are proven to correlate with h-index, although it was not the decision criterion for them till recent years. Once h-index becomes the rule-setting scientometric ranking measure in the zero-sum game for academic positions and research resources as suggested by its advocates, the rational behavior of competing academics is expected to converge towards its game-theoretic solution. This paper derives the game-theoretic solution, its evidence in scientometric data and discusses its consequences on the development of science. DBLP database of 07/2017 was used for mining. Additionally, the openly available scientometric datasets are introduced as a good alternative to commercial datasets of comparable size for public research in behavioral sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Tagiew, Rustam & Ignatov, Dmitry I., 2017. "Behavior Mining in h-index Ranking Game," MPRA Paper 82795, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:82795

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    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. George A. Lozano & Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras, 2012. "The weakening relationship between the impact factor and papers' citations in the digital age," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2140-2145, November.
    3. Pablo D. Batista & Mônica G. Campiteli & Osame Kinouchi, 2006. "Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(1), pages 179-189, July.
    4. Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 564-576.
    5. Abbasi, Alireza & Altmann, Jörn & Hossain, Liaquat, 2011. "Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 594-607.
    6. Zhengxin Chen, 2006. "From Data Mining To Behavior Mining," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(04), pages 703-711.
    7. Parolo, Pietro Della Briotta & Pan, Raj Kumar & Ghosh, Rumi & Huberman, Bernardo A. & Kaski, Kimmo & Fortunato, Santo, 2015. "Attention decay in science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 734-745.
    8. Olle Persson & Wolfgang Glänzel & Rickard Danell, 2004. "Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 421-432, August.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Ben Zhang & Xiaohong Wang, 2017. "Empirical study on influence of university-industry collaboration on research performance and moderating effect of social capital: evidence from engineering academics in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 257-277, October.
    4. Christopher McCarty & James W. Jawitz & Allison Hopkins & Alex Goldman, 2013. "Predicting author h-index using characteristics of the co-author network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 467-483, August.
    5. Serge Galam, 2011. "Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 365-379, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Hassan Bougrine, 2014. "Subfield effects on the core of coauthors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1047-1064, February.
    8. Jiancheng Guan & Yan Yan & Jingjing Zhang, 2015. "How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 333-355, January.
    9. Richard S. J. Tol, 2011. "Credit where credit’s due: accounting for co-authorship in citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 291-299, October.
    10. Marcel Ausloos, 2014. "Binary scientific star coauthors core size," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 331-351, May.
    11. Jason Cory Brunson & Xiaoyan Wang & Reinhard C Laubenbacher, 2017. "Effects of research complexity and competition on the incidence and growth of coauthorship in biomedicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, March.
    12. Guan, Jiancheng & Yan, Yan & Zhang, Jing Jing, 2017. "The impact of collaboration and knowledge networks on citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 407-422.
    13. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas & David Adams, 2014. "hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 811-821, June.
    14. Lei Li & Yan Wang & Guanfeng Liu & Meng Wang & Xindong Wu, 2015. "Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-28, June.
    15. Christoph Steinbrüchel, 2019. "A citation index for principal investigators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 305-320, January.
    16. Siying Li & Huawei Shen & Peng Bao & Xueqi Cheng, 2021. "$$h_u$$ h u -index: a unified index to quantify individuals across disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3209-3226, April.
    17. Xie, Zonglin & Xie, Zheng & Li, Jianping & Yang, Qian, 2018. "Exploring the influence of social activity on scientific career," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 500(C), pages 189-198.
    18. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2019. "The value and credits of n-authors publications," Working Papers 2072/376026, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    19. Nataliya N. Matveeva & Oleg V. Poldin, 2017. "How Network Characteristics of Researchers Relate to Their Citation Indicators – a Co-Authorship Network Analysis Based on Google Scholar," HSE Working papers WP BRP 44/EDU/2017, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    20. Jingda Ding & Chao Liu & Goodluck Asobenie Kandonga, 2020. "Exploring the limitations of the h-index and h-type indexes in measuring the research performance of authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1303-1322, March.

    More about this item


    h-index; scientometrics; behavior mining; behavioral game theory; experimental economics; data science; social networks; research funding; R&D budget; innovation management;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - General
    • C4 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics
    • C55 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Large Data Sets: Modeling and Analysis
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:pra:mprapa:82795. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.