Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index?: a comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine
Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index?: a comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/asi.20806
复制
发表时间：
2008-03-01
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，我们检查了关于h指数及其最重要的变量的经验结果，以确定所开发的变量是否与用于评估目的的增量贡献相关。使用生物医学博士后研究人员的书目数据进行因子分析的结果表明，关于h指数及其变体，我们处理的是两种类型的指数，每种指数加载一个因子。一种类型描述了科学家产出的最多产核心，并给出了该核心中的论文数量。其他类型的指数描述了论文在核心中的影响。由于用于评估目的的指数是科学家之间进行比较的有用标准，如果该指数与同行评估强烈对应，则我们计算了Logistic回归分析，将因子分析得到的两个因素作为自变量，将博士后研究人员的同行评估作为因变量。回归分析的结果表明，使用“生产核心的影响”因素可以比使用“生产核心的数量”因素更好地预测同行评估。
In this study, we examined empirical results on the h index and its most important variants in order to determine whether the variants developed are associated with an incremental contribution for evaluation purposes. The results of a factor analysis using bibliographic data on postdoctoral researchers in biomedicine indicate that regarding the h index and its variants, we are dealing with two types of indices that load on one factor each. One type describes the most productive core of a scientist's output and gives the number of papers in that core. The other type of indices describes the impact of the papers in the core. Because an index for evaluative purposes is a useful yardstick for comparison among scientists if the index corresponds strongly with peer assessments, we calculated a logistic regression analysis with the two factors resulting from the factor analysis as independent variables and peer assessment of the postdoctoral researchers as the dependent variable. The results of the regression analysis show that peer assessments can be predicted better using the factor 'impact of the productive core' than using the factor 'quantity of the productive core.'