A simple centrality index for scientific social recognition

We introduce a new centrality index for bipartite network of papers and authors that we call $K$-index. The $K$-index grows with the citation performance of the papers that cite a given researcher and can seen as a measure of scientific social recognition. Indeed, the $K$-index measures the number of hubs, defined in a self-consistent way in the bipartite network, that cites a given author. We show that the $K$-index can be computed by simple inspection of the Web of Science platform and presents several advantages over other centrality indexes, in particular Hirsch $h$-index. The $K$-index is robust to self-citations, is not limited by the total number of papers published by a researcher as occurs for the $h$-index and can distinguish in a consistent way researchers that have the same $h$-index but very different scientific social recognition. The $K$-index easily detects a known case of a researcher with inflated number of papers, citations and $h$-index due to scientific misconduct. Finally, we show that, in a sample of twenty-eight physics Nobel laureates and twenty-eight highly cited non-Nobel-laureate physicists, the $K$-index correlates better to the achievement of the prize than the number of papers, citations, citations per paper, citing articles or the $h$-index. Clustering researchers in a $K$ versus $h$ plot reveals interesting outliers that suggest that these two indexes can present complementary independent information.

[1]  Zheng Xie,et al.  A geometric graph model for citation networks of exponentially growing scientific papers , 2016 .

[2]  Romualdo Pastor-Satorras,et al.  Topological structure and the H index in complex networks. , 2017, Physical review. E.

[3]  E. Ising Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus , 1925 .

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

[5]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Eminence of scientists in the light of the h-index and other scientometric indicators , 2007, J. Inf. Sci..

[6]  Michael Schreiber,et al.  Self-citation corrections for the Hirsch index , 2007 .

[7]  Xueqi Cheng,et al.  Modeling the clustering in citation networks , 2011, ArXiv.

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

[9]  Jin Chen,et al.  On the definition of forward and backward citation generations , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[10]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  On the Predictability of Future Impact in Science , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Mônica G. Campiteli,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research valid across disciplines , 2005 .

[12]  Juan E. Iglesias,et al.  Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields , 2006, Scientometrics.

[13]  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..

[14]  Tao Zhou,et al.  The H-index of a network node and its relation to degree and coreness , 2016, Nature Communications.

[15]  Michael Schreiber,et al.  Twenty Hirsch index variants and other indicators giving more or less preference to highly cited papers , 2010, ArXiv.

[16]  Krzysztof R. Apt,et al.  The H-index can be easily manipulated , 2013, Bull. EATCS.

[17]  R. Todeschini,et al.  Handbook of Bibliometric Indicators: Quantitative Tools for Studying and Evaluating Research , 2016 .

[18]  András Schubert,et al.  Using the h-index for assessing single publications , 2009, Scientometrics.

[19]  J. Hirsch Does the h index have predictive power? , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  A general conceptual framework for characterizing the ego in a network , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[21]  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..

[22]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[23]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones? , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[24]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  How Citation Boosts Promote Scientific Paradigm Shifts and Nobel Prizes , 2011, PloS one.

[25]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network science , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[26]  András Schubert,et al.  Hirsch-index for countries based on Essential Science Indicators data , 2007, Scientometrics.

[27]  Chrisovaladis Malesios,et al.  Measuring the Robustness of the Journal H-Index with Respect to Publication and Citation Values: A Bayesian Sensitivity Analysis , 2016, J. Informetrics.

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

[29]  Albert-Lszl Barabsi,et al.  Network Science , 2016, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[30]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[31]  Johannes Hönekopp,et al.  Future publication success in science is better predicted by traditional measures than by the h index , 2011, Scientometrics.

[32]  A. Telcs,et al.  Lobby index in networks , 2008, 0809.0514.

[33]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations , 2001, cond-mat/0104162.

[34]  Tim S. Evans,et al.  What is the dimension of citation space? , 2014, ArXiv.

[35]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[36]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  Probing the effect of author self-citations on h index: A case study of environmental engineering , 2011, J. Inf. Sci..

[37]  Gabriel-Alexandru Vîiu,et al.  A theoretical evaluation of Hirsch-type bibliometric indicators confronted with extreme self-citation , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[38]  Quirin Schiermeier,et al.  Self-publishing editor set to retire , 2008, Nature.

[39]  Osame Kinouchi,et al.  Lobby index as a network centrality measure , 2013 .

[40]  Miguel A. García-Pérez,et al.  An extension of the h index that covers the tail and the top of the citation curve and allows ranking researchers with similar h , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[41]  Mônica G. Campiteli,et al.  Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? , 2006, Scientometrics.

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

[43]  Enrique Herrera-Viedma,et al.  H-Classics: characterizing the concept of citation classics through H-index , 2014, Scientometrics.

[44]  Daren Yu,et al.  Measuring the preferential attachment mechanism in citation networks , 2008 .

[45]  M. Newman Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[46]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  The suitability of h and g indexes for measuring the research performance of institutions , 2013, Scientometrics.

[47]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  The inconsistency of the h-index , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..