A comparative study of cross-domain research output and citations: Research impact cubes and binary citation frequencies

Across the various scientific domains, significant differences occur with respect to research publishing formats, frequencies and citing practices, the nature and organisation of research and the number and impact of a given domain's academic journals. Consequently, differences occur in the citations and h-indices of the researchers. This paper attempts to identify cross-domain differences using quantitative and qualitative measures. The study focuses on the relationships among citations, most-cited papers and h-indices across domains and for research group sizes. The analysis is based on the research output of approximately 10,000 researchers in Slovenia, of which we focus on 6536 researchers working in 284 research group programmes in 2008–2012.

[1]  M. Jennions,et al.  The h index and career assessment by numbers. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[2]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  The h-index for countries in Web of Science and Scopus , 2009, Online Inf. Rev..

[3]  Jochen Gläser,et al.  Why are the Most Influential Books in Australian Sociology not Necessarily the Most Highly Cited Ones? , 2004 .

[4]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators , 2010 .

[5]  Pablo Dorta-González,et al.  Central indexes to the citation distribution: a complement to the h-index , 2011, Scientometrics.

[6]  M. O. Lorenz,et al.  Methods of Measuring the Concentration of Wealth , 1905, Publications of the American Statistical Association.

[7]  Yu-Wei Chang,et al.  Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective , 2008 .

[8]  Lokman I. Meho,et al.  Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  José María Sarabia,et al.  Modeling the probabilistic distribution of the impact factor , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[10]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Types of research output profiles: A multilevel latent class analysis of the Austrian Science Fund’s final project report data , 2012 .

[11]  Anthony F. J. van Raan.  Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups , 2013, Scientometrics.

[12]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  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 , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[13]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  A Hirsch-type index for journals , 2006, Scientometrics.

[14]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Quality Judgments of Journals as Indicators of Research Performance in the Humanities and the Social and Behavioral Sciences. , 1991 .

[15]  David Dunbar.  Tensions , 2021, Management Behaviours in Higher Education.

[16]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Composite scientometric indicators for evaluating publications of research institutes , 2006, Scientometrics.

[17]  L. Egghe,et al.  An econometric property of the g-index , 2009, Inf. Process. Manag..

[18]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[19]  Marta Seljak.  The COBISS system: supporting interlending and document supply , 1996 .

[20]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparison across scientific domains: The case of fractional citation counts , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[21]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[22]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ("Leiden") evaluations of research performance , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[23]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level , 2007, J. Informetrics.

[24]  Gad Saad,et al.  Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively , 2006, Scientometrics.

[25]  Paul Bourke,et al.  Publication types, citation rates and evaluation , 1996, Scientometrics.

[26]  Quentin L. Burrell,et al.  Symmetry and other transformation features of Lorenz/Leimkuhler representations of informetric data , 2005, Inf. Process. Manag..

[27]  R. Rousseau,et al.  The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index , 2007 .

[28]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Normalization at the field level: fractional counting of citations , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[29]  Carl T. Bergstrom,et al.  Differences in impact factor across fields and over time , 2009 .

[30]  S. K. Horwitz,et al.  The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography , 2007 .

[31]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[32]  Filippo Radicchi,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[33]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Rivals for the crown: Reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff , 2010, J. Informetrics.