Do We Need the h Index and Its Variants in Addition to Standard Bibliometric Measures?
Do We Need the h Index and Its Variants in Addition to Standard Bibliometric Measures?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/asi.21016
复制
发表时间：
2009-06-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Daniel, Hans-Dieter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bornmann, Lutz;Mutz, Ruediger;Daniel, Hans-Dieter
在这项研究中，我们调查是否有必要的h指数及其变种，除了标准的文献计量措施（SBM）。我们最近的研究结果（L。博恩曼河Mutz，& H.- D.丹尼尔，2008）已经指出存在两种类型的索引：一种类型的索引（例如，h索引）描述了科学家产出中最具生产力的核心，并告知核心中的论文数量。其他类型的索引（例如，索引）描述了核心中的论文的影响。在评价性文献计量学研究中，产出的数量和质量两个维度通常使用SBMs“出版物数量”（用于数量维度）和“总引用计数”（用于影响维度）进行评估。我们还将SBM纳入因子分析。新计算的分析结果表明，“出版物数量”与生产核心数量因素的指数之间以及“总引用次数”与生产核心影响因素的指数之间存在高度相关性。在实证应用中，一个业绩维度内的高负荷指数和SBMs可以被称为多余的，因为不同指标之间的高度相关性是衡量类似（或相同）事物的标志。根据我们的研究结果，我们建议使用任何一对指标（一个有关的论文数量在一个研究人员的生产核心和一个有关这些核心论文的影响）作为一个有意义的方法比较科学家。
In this study, we investigate whether there is a need for the h index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures (SBMs). Results from our recent study (L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, & H.-D. Daniel, 2008) have indicated that there are two types of indices: One type of indices (e.g., h index) describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and informs about the number of papers in the core. The other type of indices (e.g., a index) depicts the impact of the papers in the core. In evaluative bibliometric studies, the two dimensions quantity and quality of output are usually assessed using the SBMs "number of publications" (for the quantity dimension) and "total citation counts" (for the impact dimension). We additionally included the SBMs into the factor analysis. The results of the newly calculated analysis indicate that there is a high intercorrelation between "number of publications" and the indices that load substantially on the factor Quantity of the Productive Core as well as between "total citation counts" and the indices that load substantially on the factor Impact of the Productive Core. The high-loading indices and SBMs within one performance dimension could be called redundant in empirical application, as high intercorrelations between different indicators are a sign for measuring something similar (or the same). Based on our findings, we propose the use of any pair of indicators (one relating to the number of papers in a researcher's productive core and one relating to the impact of these core papers) as a meaningful approach for comparing scientists.