A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators.
A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11192-017-2351-9
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Lando T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bertoli-Barsotti L;Lando T
在现有的h指数理论公式中，最近由Burrell （J informeter:774 - 783）和Bertoli-Barsotti和Lando （J informeter 9(4): 762-776）提出的公式已被证明在估计h指数的实际值方面非常有效（Hirsch (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569-16572)），至少在科学家个人的水平上。这些方法导致（或可能导致）两个略有不同的公式，分别基于几何分布的“标准”和“移位”版本。在本文中，我们回顾了这两个公式的起源——我们将其称为h指数的“基本”和“改进”兰伯特- w公式——并通过实证研究将它们的有效性与从著名的Glänzel-Schubert h指数模型（而不是基于帕雷蒂模型）中获得的一些实例进行了比较。比较中考虑的所有公式都是“现成的”，即简单的引用指标函数，如：出版物总数；总被引次数；被引论文总数；被引用次数最多的论文的被引用次数。实证研究基于两组不同科学领域期刊的引文数据：更具体地说，是“统计与数学方法”领域的231种期刊和“经济、计量经济学与金融”领域的100种期刊，分别接近10万篇和2万篇出版物。引文数据指的是不同的出版/引文时间窗口、不同类型的“可引用”文献，以及分析引文过程的不同方法（“前瞻性”和“回顾性”）。我们的结论是，特别是在其改进版本中，h指数的Lambert-W公式提供了一个相当健壮和有效的即用规则，如果一个人的目标是（简单地）推导出h指数的可靠估计，那么应该优先于其他已知公式。
Of the existing theoretical formulas for the h-index, those recently suggested by Burrell (J Informetr 7:774–783,) and by Bertoli-Barsotti and Lando (J Informetr 9(4):762–776,) have proved very effective in estimating the actual value of the h-index Hirsch (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569–16572,), at least at the level of the individual scientist. These approaches lead (or may lead) to two slightly different formulas, being based, respectively, on a “standard” and a “shifted” version of the geometric distribution. In this paper, we review the genesis of these two formulas—which we shall call the “basic” and “improved” Lambert-W formula for the h-index—and compare their effectiveness with that of a number of instances taken from the well-known Glänzel–Schubert class of models for the h-index (based, instead, on a Paretian model) by means of an empirical study. All the formulas considered in the comparison are “ready-to-use”, i.e., functions of simple citation indicators such as: the total number of publications; the total number of citations; the total number of cited paper; the number of citations of the most cited paper. The empirical study is based on citation data obtained from two different sets of journals belonging to two different scientific fields: more specifically, 231 journals from the area of “Statistics and Mathematical Methods” and 100 journals from the area of “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”, totaling almost 100,000 and 20,000 publications, respectively. The citation data refer to different publication/citation time windows, different types of “citable” documents, and alternative approaches to the analysis of the citation process (“prospective” and “retrospective”). We conclude that, especially in its improved version, the Lambert-W formula for the h-index provides a quite robust and effective ready-to-use rule that should be preferred to other known formulas if one’s goal is (simply) to derive a reliable estimate of the h-index.