P-Index

Shiva P. Pudasaini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.07543

2022-06-29

Abstract:I propose the P-Index that genuinely constitutes a well-defined, compact author citation metric.

Digital Libraries,Physics and Society

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Pagerank-Index: Going beyond Citation Counts in Quantifying Scientific Impact of Researchers

Upul Senanayake,Mahendra Piraveenan,Albert Zomaya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134794

IF: 3.7

2015-08-19

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various 'groups' of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to 'massage' their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.

multidisciplinary sciences
Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index

Shaon Sahoo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1988-0

2016-06-06

Abstract:A researcher collaborating with many groups will normally have more papers (and thus higher citations and $h$-index) than a researcher spending all his/her time working alone or in a small group. While analyzing an author's research merit, it is therefore not enough to consider only the collective impact of the published papers, it is also necessary to quantify his/her share in the impact. For this quantification, here I propose the $I$-index which is defined as an author's percentage share in the total citations that his/her papers have attracted. It is argued that this $I$-index does not directly depend on the most of the subjective issues like an author's influence, affiliation, seniority or career break. A simple application of the Central Limit Theorem shows that, the scheme of equidistribution of credit among the coauthors of a paper will give us the most probable value of the $I$-index (with an associated small standard deviation which decreases with increasing $h$-index). I show that the total citations ($N_c$), the $h$-index and the $I$-index are three independent parameters (within their bounds), and together they give a comprehensive idea of an author's overall research performance.

Digital Libraries,Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability,Physics and Society
CITEX: A new citation index to measure the relative importance of authors and papers in scientific publications

Arindam Pal,Sushmita Ruj

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1501.04894

2015-01-21

Abstract:Evaluating the performance of researchers and measuring the impact of papers written by scientists is the main objective of citation analysis. Various indices and metrics have been proposed for this. In this paper, we propose a new citation index CITEX, which gives normalized scores to authors and papers to determine their rankings. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first citation index which simultaneously assigns scores to both authors and papers. Using these scores, we can get an objective measure of the reputation of an author and the impact of a paper. We model this problem as an iterative computation on a publication graph, whose vertices are authors and papers, and whose edges indicate which author has written which paper. We prove that this iterative computation converges in the limit, by using a powerful theorem from linear algebra. We run this algorithm on several examples, and find that the author and paper scores match closely with what is suggested by our intuition. The algorithm is theoretically sound and runs very fast in practice. We compare this index with several existing metrics and find that CITEX gives far more accurate scores compared to the traditional metrics.

Digital Libraries,Discrete Mathematics,Information Retrieval,Social and Information Networks,Physics and Society
The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03831-9

IF: 3.801

2021-02-06

Scientometrics

Abstract:The Hirsch or h-index continues to be one of the most popular author-based metrics, despite some of its flaws and limitations. In some cases, citations to some academics' work are increasing at a phenomenal pace, and in some exceptional cases such as Highly Cited Researchers (HCRs), whether alive or deceased, citation counts to their work have reached tens or hundreds of thousands, with h-indexes in the hundreds. Although the h-index currently has one additional derivative index, the i10-index, which is a measure of the number of publications with 10 or more citations, the i10-index is clearly not a sufficient differentiating factor for academics with very high citation counts such as HCRs. In this letter, an expansion of this metric is proposed to include an i100-index, an i1000-index, and an i10,000-index, which indicate the number of publications with 100, 1000, or 10,000 or more citations, respectively. These three new, expanded and/or modified metrics that are based on the h-index may assist in more effectively differentiating the top echelon of HCRs or leaders in a specific field of study. The i100-, i1000-, and i10,000-indexes for 10 HCRs (Michel Foucault, Ronald C. Kessler, Graham Colditz, Sigmund Freud, JoAnn E. Manson, Shizuo Akira, Pierre Bourdieu, Robert Langer, Eric Lander, and Bert Vogelstein) were calculated. Limitations to these three new proposed h-index-based indexes are noted.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
$h_{PI}$: The Citation Index for Principal Investigators

Christoph Steinbrüchel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1807.06442

2018-07-17

Digital Libraries

Abstract:A new citation index $h_{PI}$ for principal investigators (PIs) is defined in analogy to Hirsch's index $h$, but based on renormalized citations of a PI's papers. To this end, the authors of a paper are divided into two groups: PIs and non-PIs. A PI is defined as an assistant, associate or full professor at a university who supervises an individual research program. The citations for each paper of a certain PI are then divided by the number of PIs among the authors of that paper. Data are presented for a sample of 48 PIs who are senior faculty members of physics and physics-related engineering departments at a private research-oriented U.S. university, using the ISI Web of Science citations database. The main result is that individual rankings based on $h$ and $h_{PI}$ differ substantially. Also, to a good approximation across the sample of 48 PIs, one finds that $h_{PI} = h \,/ \sqrt{<N_{PI}>}$ where <$N_{PI}$> is the average number of principal investigators on the papers of a particular PI. In addition, $h_{PI} = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{C_{tot}\,/<N_{PI}>}$, where $C_{tot}$ is the total number of citations. Approaches to broadening the scope of $h$ or $h_{PI}$ are discussed briefly, and a new metric for highly cited papers called $h_x$ is introduced which represents the average number of citations exceeding the minimum of $h^2$ in the $h$-core.
Is the new citation-rank approach P100' in bibliometrics really new?

Michael Schreiber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.10.001

2014-09-17

Abstract:The percentile-based rating scale P100 describes the citation impact in terms of the distribution of unique citation values. This approach has recently been refined by considering also the frequency of papers with the same citation counts. Here I compare the resulting P100' with P100 for an empirical dataset and a simple fictitious model dataset. It is shown that P100' is not much different from standard percentile-based ratings in terms of citation frequencies. A new indicator P100'' is introduced.

Digital Libraries
R-Index: A Metric for Assessing Researcher Contributions to Peer Review

Milad Malekzadeh

2024-10-11

Abstract:I propose the R-Index, defined as the difference between the sum of review responsibilities for a researcher's publications and the number of reviews they have completed, as a novel metric to effectively characterize a researcher's contribution to the peer review process. This index aims to balance the demands placed on the peer review system by a researcher's publication output with their engagement in reviewing others' work, providing a measure of whether they are giving back to the academic community commensurately with their own publication demands. The R-Index offers a straightforward and fair approach to encourage equitable participation in peer review, thereby supporting the sustainability and efficiency of the scholarly publishing process.

Digital Libraries
The x-index: A new citation-distance-based index to measure academic influence

Yun Wan,Feng Xiao,Lu Li,Zhenghao Zhong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.14759

2021-05-31

Digital Libraries

Abstract:An important issue in the field of academic measurement is how to evaluate academic influence scientifically and comprehensively, which can help government and research organizations better allocate academic resources and recruit researchers. It is generally accepted that using weighted citations to measure academic influence is more reasonable than treating all citations equally. Given the limitations of the existing c-index, the first index in bibliometric literature that measures output based on the quantity and quality of received citations, we propose the x-index, which assigns weight to each citation according to its distance. By defining collaboration distance and citation distance, we first analyze the properties of the collaboration network and citation distance, then perform theoretical and empirical analyses on c-index to reveal its shortcomings, finally, we suggest the x-index and conduct experiments and analysis on the x-index. Experimental results demonstrate that compared with the c-index, h-index, and g-index, the x-index shows a stronger discriminatory power.
The Citation-Based Indicator and Combined Impact Indicator-New Options for Measuring Impact

Ping Zhou,Yongfeng Zhong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.05.004

IF: 3.7

2012-01-01

Journal of Informetrics

Abstract:Metrics based on percentile ranks (PRs) for measuring scholarly impact involves complex treatment because of various defects such as overvaluing or devaluing an object caused by percentile ranking schemes, ignoring precise citation variation among those ranked next to each other, and inconsistency caused by additional papers or citations. These defects are especially obvious in a small-sized dataset. To avoid the complicated treatment of PRs based metrics, we propose two new indicators—the citation-based indicator (CBI) and the combined impact indicator (CII). Document types of publications are taken into account. With the two indicators, one would no more be bothered by complex issues encountered by PRs based indicators. For a small-sized dataset with less than 100 papers, special calculation is no more needed. The CBI is based solely on citation counts and the CII measures the integrate contributions of publications and citations. Both virtual and empirical data are used so as to compare the effect of related indicators. The CII and the PRs based indicator I3 are highly correlated but the former reflects citation impact more and the latter relates more to publications.
On the "persistency" of scientific publications: introducing an h-index for journals

Roberto Piazza

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.09390

2017-05-23

Abstract:What do we really mean by a "good" scientific journal? Do we care more about the short-time impact of our papers, or about the chance that they will still be read and cited on the long run? Here I show that, by regarding a journal as a "virtual scientist" that can be attributed a time-dependent Hirsch h-index, we can introduce a parameter that, arguably, better captures the "persistency" of a scientific publication. Curiously, however, this parameter seems to depend above all on the "thickness" of a journal.

Physics and Society,Digital Libraries
x-index: a fantastic new indicator for quantifying a scientist's scientific impact.

Xiaojun Wan

2014-01-01

Abstract: h-index has become the most popular indicator for quantifying a scientist's scientific impact in various scientific fields. h-index is defined as the largest number of papers with citation number larger than or equal to h and it treats each citation equally. However, different citations usually come from different papers with different influence and quality, and a citation from a highly influential paper is a greater recognition of the target paper than a citation from an ordinary paper. Based on this assumption, we proposed a new indicator named x-index to quantify a scientist's scientific impact by considering only the citations coming from influential papers. x-index is defined as the largest number of papers with influential citation number larger than or equal to x, where each influential citation comes from a paper for which the average ACNPP (Average Citation Number Per Paper) of its authors larger than or equal to x . Through analysis on the APS dataset, we find that the proposed x-index has much better ability to discriminate between Physics Prize Winners and ordinary physicists.
An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output

J. E. Hirsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102

IF: 11.1

2005-11-07

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract:I propose the index h , defined as the number of papers with citation number ≥ h , as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher.
From P100 to P100_: Conception and improvement of a new citation-rank approach in bibliometrics

Lutz Bornmann,Ruediger Mutz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1307.0667

2013-10-10

Abstract:Properties of a percentile-based rating scale needed in bibliometrics are formulated. Based on these properties, P100 was recently introduced as a new citation-rank approach (Bornmann, Leydesdorff, & Wang, in press). In this paper, we conceptualize P100 and propose an improvement which we call P100_. Advantages and disadvantages of citation-rank indicators are noted.

Digital Libraries
How to measure research performance of single scientists? A proposal for an index based on scientific prizes: The Prize Winner Index (PWI)

Lutz Bornmann,Robin Haunschild

2023-03-31

Abstract:In this study, we propose a new index for measuring excellence in science which is based on collaborations (co-authorship distances) in science. The index is based on the Erdős number - a number that was introduced several years ago. We propose to focus with the new index on laureates of prestigious prizes in a certain field and to measure co-authorship distances between the laureates and other scientists. To exemplify and explain our proposal, we computed the proposed index in the field of quantitative science studies (PWIPM). The Derek de Solla Price Memorial Award (Price Medal, PM) is awarded to outstanding scientists in the field. We tested the convergent validity of the PWIPM. We were interested whether the indicator is related to an established bibliometric indicator: P(top 10%). The results show that the coefficients for the correlation between PWIPM and P(top 10%) are high (in cases when a sufficient number of papers have been considered for a reliable assessment of performance). Therefore, measured by an established indicator for research excellence, the new PWI indicator seems to be convergently valid and, therefore, might be a possible alternative for established (bibliometric) indicators - with a focus on prizes.

Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
The w-index: A measure to assess scientific impact by focusing on widely cited papers

WuQiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5555/1752166.1752184

2010-01-01

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Abstract:Based on the principles of the h-index, I propose a new measure, the w-index, as a particularly simple and more useful way to assess the substantial impact of a researcher's work, especially regard...
Central indexes to the citation distribution: A complement to the h-index

Pablo Dorta-Gonzalez,Maria Isabel Dorta-Gonzalez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0453-3

2013-04-18

Abstract:The citation distribution of a researcher shows the impact of their production and determines the success of their scientific career. However, its application in scientific evaluation is difficult due to the bi-dimensional character of the distribution. Some bibliometric indexes that try to synthesize in a numerical value the principal characteristics of this distribution have been proposed recently. In contrast with other bibliometric measures, the biases that the distribution tails provoke, are reduced by the h-index. However, some limitations in the discrimination among researchers with different publication habits are presented in this index. This index penalizes selective researchers, distinguished by the large number of citations received, as compared to large producers. In this work, two original sets of indexes, the central area indexes and the central interval indexes, that complement the h-index to include the central shape of the citation distribution, are proposed and compared.

Digital Libraries,Physics and Society,Applications
The Poincaré-extended ab-index

Galen Dorpalen-Barry,Joshua Maglione,Christian Stump

2024-09-05

Abstract:Motivated by a conjecture concerning Igusa local zeta functions for intersection posets of hyperplane arrangements, we introduce and study the Poincaré-extended ab-index, which generalizes both the ab-index and the Poincaré polynomial. For posets admitting R-labelings, we give a combinatorial description of the coefficients of the extended ab-index, proving their nonnegativity. In the case of intersection posets of hyperplane arrangements, we prove the above conjecture of the second author and Voll as well as another conjecture of the second author and Kühne. We also define the pullback ab-index generalizing the cd-index of face posets for oriented matroids. Our results recover, generalize and unify results from Billera-Ehrenborg-Readdy, Bergeron-Mykytiuk-Sottile-van Willigenburg, Saliola-Thomas, and Ehrenborg. This connection allows us to translate our results into the language of quasisymmetric functions, and-in the special case of symmetric functions-make a conjecture about Schur positivity. A proof of this conjecture now appears an appendix by Ricky Ini Liu.

Combinatorics
An empirical and theoretical critique of the Euclidean index

Jens Peter Andersen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.009

IF: 3.7

2017-05-01

Journal of Informetrics

Abstract:The recently proposed Euclidean index offers a novel approach to measure the citation impact of academic authors, in particular as an alternative to the h-index. We test if the index provides new, robust information, not covered by existing bibliometric indicators, discuss the measurement scale and the degree of distinction between analytical units the index offers. We find that the Euclidean index does not outperform existing indicators on these topics and that the main application of the index would be solely for ranking, which is not seen as a recommended practice.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
The Role of Positive and Negative Citations in Scientific Evaluation

Xiaomei Bai,Ivan Lee,Zhaolong Ning,Amr Tolba,Feng Xia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.03844

2020-08-10

Abstract:Quantifying the impact of scientific papers objectively is crucial for research output assessment, which subsequently affects institution and country rankings, research funding allocations, academic recruitment and national/international scientific priorities. While most of the assessment schemes based on publication citations may potentially be manipulated through negative citations, in this study, we explore Conflict of Interest (COI) relationships and discover negative citations and subsequently weaken the associated citation strength. PANDORA (Positive And Negative COI- Distinguished Objective Rank Algorithm) has been developed, which captures the positive and negative COI, together with the positive and negative suspected COI relationships. In order to alleviate the influence caused by negative COI relationship, collaboration times, collaboration time span, citation times and citation time span are employed to determine the citing strength; while for positive COI relationship, we regard it as normal citation relationship. Furthermore, we calculate the impact of scholarly papers by PageRank and HITS algorithms, based on a credit allocation algorithm which is utilized to assess the impact of institutions fairly and objectively. Experiments are conducted on the publication dataset from American Physical Society (APS) dataset, and the results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms the current solutions in Recommendation Intensity of list R at top-K and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient at top-K.

Digital Libraries,Information Retrieval
Top Cited Articles in Adsorption Research Using Y-Index

Hui-Zhen Fu,Yuh-Shan Ho

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt018

2014-01-01

Research Evaluation

Abstract:A bibliometric index called Y-index (j, h) is developed, taking the prominent first author and corresponding author positions into account for evaluation and comparison of scientific productivity. Y-index contained two parameters: publication performance j, which is related to publication quantity, and publication character h, which describes the proportion of corresponding author publications (RP) to first author publications (FP). The top cited articles with at least 100 citations from 1900 to 2012 were selected to examine the Y-index for the evaluation. Y-index and three indicators, number of total publications, FP and RP, were compared. The main contributors of authors, institutions and countries and their contribution characters were revealed by Y-index. Results showed that the topmost authors were more likely to being designated as the corresponding authors, and their contribution characters varied widely. Most institutions and countries had a balance of FP and RP. Y-index that accredits the important collaborators with weighted and comprehensive credit might be a better choice for the evaluation.

P-Index

The Pagerank-Index: Going beyond Citation Counts in Quantifying Scientific Impact of Researchers

Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index

CITEX: A new citation index to measure the relative importance of authors and papers in scientific publications

The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification

$h_{PI}$: The Citation Index for Principal Investigators

Is the new citation-rank approach P100' in bibliometrics really new?

R-Index: A Metric for Assessing Researcher Contributions to Peer Review

The x-index: A new citation-distance-based index to measure academic influence

The Citation-Based Indicator and Combined Impact Indicator-New Options for Measuring Impact

On the "persistency" of scientific publications: introducing an h-index for journals

x-index: a fantastic new indicator for quantifying a scientist's scientific impact.

An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output

From P100 to P100_: Conception and improvement of a new citation-rank approach in bibliometrics

How to measure research performance of single scientists? A proposal for an index based on scientific prizes: The Prize Winner Index (PWI)

The w-index: A measure to assess scientific impact by focusing on widely cited papers

Central indexes to the citation distribution: A complement to the h-index

The Poincaré-extended ab-index

An empirical and theoretical critique of the Euclidean index

The Role of Positive and Negative Citations in Scientific Evaluation

Top Cited Articles in Adsorption Research Using Y-Index