Core indicators and professional recognition of scientometricians

The publication performance of 30 scientometricians is studied. The individuals are classified into 3 cohorts according to their manifested professional recognition, as Price medalists (Pm), members of the editorial board of Scientometrics and the Journal of Informetrics (Rw), and session chairs (Sc) at an International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) conference. Several core impact indicators are calculated: h, g, π, citation distribution score (CDS), percentage rank position (PRP), and weight of influence of papers (WIP10). The indices significantly correlate with each other. The mean value of the indices of the cohorts decreases parallel with the decrease in professional recognition: Pm > Rw > Sc. The 30 scientometricians studied were clustered according to the core impact indices. The members in the clusters so obtained overlap only partly with the members in the cohorts made by professional recognition. The Total Overlap is calculated by dividing the sum of the diagonal elements in the cohorts‐clusters matrix with the total number of elements, times 100. The highest overlap (76.6%) was obtained with the g‐index. Accordingly, the g‐index seems to have the greatest discriminative power in the system studied. The cohorts‐clusters method may be used for validating scientometric indicators.

[1]  Andrea Bergmann,et al.  Citation Indexing Its Theory And Application In Science Technology And Humanities , 2016 .

[2]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications , 1986, Scientometrics.

[3]  D. Aksnes,et al.  Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university , 2004 .

[4]  Stephen J. Bensman.  The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[5]  Stephen Cole,et al.  Social Stratification in Science , 1974 .

[6]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Would it be possible to increase the Hirsch-index, π-index or CDS-index by increasing the number of publications or citations only by unity? , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[7]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  The ź-index , 2009 .

[8]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations , 2013, Scientometrics.

[9]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  The use of the Percentage Rank Position index for comparative evaluation of journals , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[10]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Comparative rank assessment of journal articles , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[11]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  An attempt of surveying and classifying bibliometric indicators for scientometric purposes , 1988, Scientometrics.

[12]  Peter Vinkler.  Relations of relative scientometric indicators , 2004, Scientometrics.

[13]  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.

[14]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Generalizing the H- and G-Indices , 2008, J. Informetrics.

[15]  Péter Vinkler,et al.  The case of scientometricians with the "absolute relative" impact indicator , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[16]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  II. The scientific performance of the CERN accelerators , 1984 .

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

[18]  M. Schreiber,et al.  Exploratory factor analysis for the Hirsch index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[19]  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.

[20]  Marek Kosmulski,et al.  Calibration against a reference set: A quantitative approach to assessment of the methods of assessment of scientific output , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[21]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[22]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Sixty-four years of informetrics research: productivity, impact and collaboration , 2014, Scientometrics.

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

[24]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  The πv-index: a new indicator to characterize the impact of journals , 2010, Scientometrics.

[25]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers , 2012, Scientometrics.

[26]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Growing h-index for some price medalists , 2014 .

[27]  Juan Gorraiz,et al.  Key factors and considerations in the assessment of international collaboration: a case study for Austria and six countries , 2011, Scientometrics.

[28]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Mathematical relations of the h-index with other impact measures in a Lotkaian framework , 2011, Math. Comput. Model..

[29]  Peter Vinkler.  Quantity and impact through a single indicator , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[30]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Application of the distribution of citations among publications in scientometric evaluations , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  Birger Larsen,et al.  A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators , 2014, Scientometrics.

[32]  Chun-Ting Zhang,et al.  Relationship of the h-index, g-index, and e-index , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[33]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  The π-index: a new indicator for assessing scientific impact , 2009, J. Inf. Sci..

[34]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  CERN: Past Performance and Future Prospects - I - CERN's Position in World High-Energy Physics , 1984 .

[35]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Using ‘core documents’ for detecting and labelling new emerging topics , 2011, Scientometrics.