Use of relative extra citation counts and uncited publications to enhance the discriminatory power of the h-index

Although the conventional h-index attempts to combine a researcher’s publications and citation-based impact, it requires threshold citation counts and cited papers to award a score. The consequence is that the h-index fails to consider extra citation counts as well as uncited publications, both of which reveal a researcher’s performance output. Recently, an apparent h-index was presented to extend the conventional h-index to account for the uncited publications of a researcher; unfortunately, the apparent h-index also fails to account for a researcher’s extra citation counts. In this paper, we extend the apparent h-index to account for a researcher’s extra citation counts. In particular, contrary to the conventional h-index and its variants, the proposed author-level metric uses relative extra citation counts and uncited publications to discriminate among researchers. The relative extra citation count is defined as the ratio of the absolute extra citation counts to the total number of citations. The proposed index, called a comprehensive h-index (c-index), is formulated by incorporating the relative extra citation counts and the fraction of the cited publications into the h-index. The advantages of the c-index are two-folds: first, it enhances the discriminatory power of the h-index as it considers researcher’s entire publications, whether cited or not, and all the citation counts; and second, it preserves the desirable features of the conventional h-index, namely robustness and simplicity. Case studies for researchers in Chemistry, Physics, Material Science, Engineering and Medicine have been presented. Results show that researchers could have equal h-index, but unequal c-index due to their unequal relative extra citation counts, as well as their uncited publications. Furthermore, a comparison of the c-index with the h- and g-indices have been made; results show that the c-index is more discriminatory than both the h- and g-indices. The proposed metric may contribute to the ongoing discussions on the improvement of the conventional h-index.

[1]  Fiorenzo Franceschini,et al.  Criticism on the hg-index , 2011, Scientometrics.

[2]  Roberto Todeschini,et al.  The j-index: a new bibliometric index and multivariate comparisons between other common indices , 2011, Scientometrics.

[3]  Shaibu Mohammed,et al.  On the influence of uncited publications on a researcher’s h-index , 2020, Scientometrics.

[4]  Alan Bensoussan,et al.  Traditional Chinese Medicine in Cancer Care: A Review of Controlled Clinical Studies Published in Chinese , 2013, PloS one.

[5]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  Positioning research and innovation performance using shape centroids of h-core and h-tail , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[6]  Chun-Ting Zhang,et al.  The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations , 2009, PloS one.

[7]  Sergey N. Dorogovtsev,et al.  Ranking scientists , 2015, Nature Physics.

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

[9]  Chun-Ting Zhang,et al.  The h’-Index, Effectively Improving the h-Index Based on the Citation Distribution , 2013, PloS one.

[10]  Ding-wei Huang,et al.  A scaling between Impact Factor and uncitedness , 2012 .

[11]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  Rational (successive) h-indices: An application to economics in the Republic of Ireland , 2008, Scientometrics.

[12]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  hg-index: a new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g-indices , 2010, Scientometrics.

[13]  Cameron Barnes.  The h-index Debate: An Introduction for Librarians , 2017 .

[14]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and Fields medalists as case studies , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[15]  Angela Lin,et al.  Identification of research communities in cited and uncited publications using a co-authorship network , 2018, Scientometrics.

[16]  Stefan Reckow,et al.  Stable Isotope Metabolic Labeling with a Novel 15N-Enriched Bacteria Diet for Improved Proteomic Analyses of Mouse Models for Psychopathologies , 2009, PloS one.

[17]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level , 2008, Scientometrics.

[18]  Anand Bihari,et al.  EM-index: a new measure to evaluate the scientific impact of scientists , 2017, Scientometrics.

[19]  Bihui Jin.  The AR-index: complementing the h-index , 2007 .

[20]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[21]  Alex De Visscher,et al.  What does the g-index really measure? , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  L. Egghe.  An improvement of the h-index: the g-index , 2006 .

[23]  Robin K. S. Hankin,et al.  Beyond the Durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output , 2008, Scientometrics.

[24]  L. Egghe,et al.  Theory and practise of the g-index , 2006, Scientometrics.

[25]  Tove Faber Frandsen,et al.  Zero impact: a large-scale study of uncitedness , 2019, Scientometrics.

[26]  Olen R. Brown.  The hb-index, a modified h-index designed to more fairly assess author achievement , 2012 .

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

[28]  Yannis Manolopoulos,et al.  Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks , 2007, Scientometrics.

[29]  Yuh-Shan Ho,et al.  Sleeping beauties in psychology , 2016, Scientometrics.

[30]  Gururaj S. Hadagali.  g-index as an improvement of the h-index: A comparative study of prominent Indian scientists. , 2016 .