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...

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Weighted citation based on ranking-related contribution: a new index for evaluating article impact

Yuanyuan Liu,Qiang Wu,Shijie Wu,Yong Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04115-6

IF: 3.801

2021-08-18

Scientometrics

Abstract:Citation count fails to comprehensively and accurately portray the publication's impact, and the scientific impact is far more than what we see on the surface. This paper proposes a new impact indicator, the Contribution-Weighted Citation index, in which each citation is weighted from the perspective of the citing item. The method of weighting is based on ranking of the 'old' impact values of articles published in the same year and same field, and modifies the value of one citation from each publication positively or negatively. The idea of iteration is introduced into the calculation process for more accurate results. We empirically analysed 3,847,243 papers from the WoS database for the 1978–2017 period, including the fields of Mathematics, Physics, and Space Science. The experimental results show that the three variants of the new index proposed in this article show different characteristics in identifying article impact. Our new indicator in sine mode make articles more discrete, which helps distinguish between papers with similar citation count, while the arcsine mode is more helpful to identify high-citation-quality papers. In addition, we found the average citation quality of lowly cited papers fluctuates greatly, and some such papers have surprisingly high citation quality; for highly cited case, the average citation quality stabilizes in a certain range. This article has a positive role in identifying important publications and under-cited publications.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
WL-index: Leveraging Citation Mention Number to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Impact

Xiaojun Wan,Fang Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23151

2014-01-01

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Abstract:A number of bibliometric indices have been developed to evaluate an individual's scientific impact, and the most popular are the h‐index and its variants. However, existing bibliometric indices are computed based on the number of citations received by each article, but they do not consider the frequency with which individual citations are mentioned in an article. We use “citation mention” to denote a unique occurrence of a cited reference mentioned in the citing article, and thus some citations may have more than one mention in an article. According to our analysis of the ACL Anthology Network corpus in the natural language processing field, more than 40% of cited references have been mentioned twice or in corresponding citing articles. We argue that citation mention is a preferable for representing the citation relationships between articles, that is, a reference article mentioned m times in the citing article will be considered to have received m citations, rather than one citation. Based on this assumption, we revise the h‐index and propose a new bibliometric index, the WL‐index, to evaluation an individual's scientific impact. According to our empirical analysis, the proposed WL‐index more accurately discriminates between program committee chairs of reputable conferences and ordinary authors.
Which h-index? An exploration within the Web of Science

Guangyuan Hu,Lei Wang,Rong Ni,Weishu Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03425-5

IF: 3.801

2020-04-04

Scientometrics

Abstract:The h-index has attracted wide attention from both scientometricians and science policy makers since it was proposed in 2005. Advocates champion h-index for its simplicity embracing both quantity and quality, while also express concern about its abuse in research evaluation practices and database-dependence attribute. We argue that it is increasingly important to calculate and interpret the h-index precisely along with the rapid evolution of bibliographic databases. In memory of Dr. Judit Bar-Ilan, we join the h-index discussion in <i>Scientometrics</i> by further probing a similar "which h-index" question via comparing different versions of h-index within the Web of Science. In this article we put forward the reasons of different WoS h-indices from two perspectives, which are often neglected by bibliometric studies. We suggest that users should specify the details of data sources of h-index calculation for research promotion and evaluation practices.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
The H L -Index: Improvement of H -Index Based on Quality of Citing Papers

Li Zhai,Xiangbin Yan,Bin Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1039-z

IF: 3.801

2014-01-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:This paper proposes h l -index as an improvement of the h-index, a popular measurement for the research quality of academic researchers. Although the h-index integrates the number of publications and the academic impact of each publication to evaluate the productivity of a researcher, it assumes that all papers that cite an academic article contribute equally to the academic impact of this article. This assumption, of course, could not be true in most times. The citation from a well-cited paper certainly brings more attention to the article than the citation from a paper that people do not pay attention to. It therefore becomes important to integrate the impact of papers that cite a researcher’s work into the evaluation of the productivity of the researcher. Constructing a citation network among academic papers, this paper therefore proposes h l -index that integrating the h-index with the concept of lobby index, a measures that has been used to evaluate the impact of a node in a complex network based on the impact of other nodes that the focal node has direct link with. This paper also explores the characteristics of the proposed h l -index by comparing it with citations, h-index and its variant g-index.
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.
E-Index—A Bibliometric Index of Research Efficiency

Bo Wu,Fengrong Ou,Yan Deng,Ruxi Liu,Hui Hua,Rentong Chen,Yuyuan Guan,Dan Yang,Lars Gjesteby,Jiansheng Yang,Michael W. Vannier,Ge Wang,Yang Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2868650

IF: 3.9

2018-01-01

IEEE Access

Abstract:A principal investigator is obligated not only to make academic impacts but also to do so in a cost-effective fashion. While popular bibliometric measures such as the journal impact factor (IF) and the H-index measure citation-oriented bibliometric impacts, here we propose the E-index to reflect a principal investigator's research efficiency also in terms of bibliometric data. Our E-index incorporates both IF-citation-based output and “total equivalent time”that the principal investigator's team takes to deliver the output so that the bibliometric output can be normalized by the involved research time. The E-index is then evaluated using a large set of peer-reviewed journal papers by extramurally funded Chinese principal investigators in the field of life sciences. The E-index values are compared relative to university rank and other factors. As expected, the highest average E-index scores were achieved by principal investigators at top national universities. Being quantitative, the E-index adds insight into common debates such as what the optimal team size should be, which career stage is the most prolific, and so on. The E-index should be useful in assessing principal investigators in comparable fields and longitudinally.
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
A WoS-based Positive Study on the h-index of Scientists in Natural Sciences

Pan Youneng,Ding Nan,Zhu Jiahui,Qian Shujie,Zhang Liuchun,Lai Tiegang,Ye Ying

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-1027.2009.02.012

2009-01-01

Abstract:The representatives are selected by intersection of C (citations) ranking and CPP (citations per paper) ranking via scientist path in ESI for five fields (Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geosciences). The cumulative papers (P), citations (C), citations per paper (CPP) and h-indices of these scientists are obtained from Web of Science (WoS) by search. The results show that the Spearman correlations are significant mostly between papers and h-indices and between citations and h-indices. Almost all estimating values of h-indices fall between Hirsch formula and Egghe-Rousseau formula, while there are Pearson correlations of Egghe-Rousseau computing values, Hirsch computing values and true h-indices.
Modification of the Rational h Index by Considering More Citation Information

蒋旭纯,吴强

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-1965.2013.03.017

IF: 3.1759

2013-01-01

Journal of Intelligence

Abstract:Abstract When h index is applied to measure scientific performance, it may happen that authors with different scientific impact have the equal h index. Based on the rational h index, this paper goes a step further to propose a modified rational h index by considering more cita-tion information with not only taking into account the h index of h+1, but also the h index of h+2, h+3, h+4, etc. As the citation of an article exceeds h+1, it can also have influence on the value. Thus we can get a more accurate result for scientific performance evaluation. The modified rational h index is also employed to Irish economists to test its better discrimination.
Research on the Evaluation of Scientists Based on Weighted h-index

Guo-He Feng,Xing-Qing Mo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99698-1_14

2018-12-29

Abstract:Abstract[Purpose/meaning] Solving the problem that h-index and h-type index lack of comprehensive evaluation of scientists’ overall academic contribution. [Method/process] Considering the contribution of scientists’ first h academic papers, this paper proposed two weighted h-index model which are named hw-index and hw_t-index, and then used the data from 30 active Chinese scholars in Library and Information Science field for empirical analysis. [Results/conclusion] Revealing highly cited papers and considering the contribution of scientists’ every paper, hw-index not only weakens the influence of self-citation on the results, but also makes it easy to distinguish scientists’ contributions. The hw_t-index focuses on the scientists’ papers in recent years, and it also considers their past contributions. Therefore, in short term evaluation, the hw_t-index is more reasonable for young scientists who have made a great contribution in the past years. Potential scholars can be identified by the way of comparing hw-index and hw_t-index.
PR-Index: Using the H-Index and PageRank for Determining True Impact

Chao Gao,Zhen Wang,Xianghua Li,Zili Zhang,Wei Zeng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161755

IF: 3.7

2016-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Several technical indicators have been proposed to assess the impact of authors and institutions. Here, we combine the h-index and the PageRank algorithm to do away with some of the individual limitations of these two indices. Most importantly, we aim to take into account value differences between citations-evaluating the citation sources by defining the h-index using the PageRank score rather than with citations. The resulting PR-index is then constructed by evaluating source popularity as well as the source publication authority. Extensive tests on available collections data (i.e., Microsoft Academic Search and benchmarks on the SIGKDD innovation award) show that the PR-index provides a more balanced impact measure than many existing indices. Due to its simplicity and similarity to the popular h-index, the PR-index may thus become a welcome addition to the technical indices already in use. Moreover, growth dynamics prior to the SIGKDD innovation award indicate that the PR-index might have notable predictive power.
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.
A Positive Study on the H-index of International Core Journals in Natural Sciences

Zhou Yingbo,Ma Jingdi,Ye Ying

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-1027.2009.02.013

2009-01-01

Abstract:The journals' h-indices from ISI and Scopus databases show high concordance, while h-index and Impact Factor (IF) belong to independent factors for journals. When average citations per paper fm for different fields are introduced as normalization factor of h-index, the normalized h-index hf will become an applicable indicator for comparison directly in different fields. The higher hf is, the more excellent the journal will be.
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
Comparative Study on H-index Correlative Factors of Journal Papers Published by University Library

Caihong Wang,Longyan Xue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-8095.2015.01.010

2015-01-01

Abstract:The paper takes 21 university libraries in Zhejiang Province for affiliation samples, statistically analyses published pa-pers of affiliations in 2003-2013. It uses h-index to evaluate affiliations’ published paper and analyses h-index correlative factors. The results show that h-index can evaluate affiliations’ scientific research output and impact more rationally than traditional single metric index;h-index is most highly correlated with total cited frequency of papers, followed by number of cited papers and average cited fre-quency, lowest with number of papers.
Quantifying The Impact Of Hot-Paper On New Researchers

Gohar Rehman,Jia Lee,Rashid Abbasi,Asif Kabir,Faisal bin Ubaid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3158233.3159323

2015-01-01

Abstract:Knowledge is guardianship to its seekers and it must be entrusted to them. The way to judge how solidly one is participating in their research arena is a metric that is of interest to many people in academia. Hot papers by any well-known database is based on consistent citations received over a short time and number of downloads which shows the prestige of an author, which cannot be comparable with the ordinary number of citation received over a long period of time. Including the hot papers of an author as a weighted citation is basically giving a fair credit to an author whose great contribution attracts more audience in short time in academia. In this article, we are proposing the method (weighted hot paper based index) which shows the contribution of hot paper into indexing which is a creditable contribution of an author which was not considered as an indexing parameter. Initially, we have done a simulation on small data set but in future work, we will do it on a big bibliometric dataset and compared our method with state of art H-index (Hirsch, 2005), the difference cleared the importance of hot paper as indexing parameter.
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.
Quality Research Follows the Power Law

Hanbin Mao,Jixin Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.12.3.054

2023-01-01

Journal of Scientometric Research

Abstract:Research output can be evaluated with productivity and impact, which are quantified by the numbers of publications (N) and citations N c, respectively. The h-index (H) unifies both factors. However, as an extensive variable, it grows with quantity of research output and favors senior researchers over juniors. In this report, by analyzing the data of the world top 2% scientists (n = 179,597) from an online database, we found that h-index follows power laws and proposes a different model from what Hirsch has originally proposed. We propose intensive indices (Q (N) and Q (C)) to measure quality research by comparing the actual h-index of a researcher with the power-law fitted h-indices from the top 2% scientists with the same numbers of publications and citations respectively. We further calculated a dynamic research quality (Q (1)=Q (N)/Q (C)) and a reduced index (Q (2)=(Q (N)Q (C))(0.5)) to evaluate research quality over time. We rationalized that the power law dependency of quality research is due to its heterogeneous production pathways that require extra effort with respect to "regular" research output. We found that research quality for the top 2% scientists is maximized with similar to 100 citations/paper and with about similar to 100 publications. A major advantage of these indices is that they are relative to the academic peers with similar accomplishments in publications and citations, and therefore, are independent of career stages. Since Q indices are positively correlated with H/N ratios, the research quality can also be quickly and conveniently estimated by the readily accessible values calculated using the equation H/ (N)<^>(2/3) or H/(Nc)<^>(1/2).
The inconsistency of the h-index

Ludo Waltman,Nees Jan van Eck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1108.3901

2011-08-19

Abstract:The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis) the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.

Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
Do Hirsch-type Indices Behave the Same in Assessing Single Publications? an Empirical Study of 29 Bibliometric Indicators.

Zhenbin Yan,Qiang Wu,Xingchen Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2147-3

IF: 3.801

2016-01-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:The h-index, introduced by Hirsch in 2005, was used by Schubert in 2009 to assess single publications. In 2011, Bornmann, Schier, Marx, and Daniel confirmed that the h-index is effective when assessing papers in chemistry. Quite a few Hirsch-type indices originate from the h-index. Can these Hirsch-type indices also be effectively used for assessing single publications? Will they behave the same or differently? In this study, the research objects were 26 kinds of Hirsch-type indices (including the original h-index) and three traditional methods, a total of 29 indicators. Based on the original definitions of these indicators and our new explanations of generations (i.e. mixed, pure, and non-pure generations of citations), we defined/redefined 29 paper-level metrics, calculated their values to assess publications, considered the correlations between those indices and the h-index or Wu's w-index, and did factor analysis to contrast effectiveness. It was found that a few Hirsch-type indices (i.e. the f-index, rational h-index, real h-index, j-index, hg-index, Woeginger's w-index, and tapered h-index) are highly correlated with the h-index but not close to Wu's w-index, while some other indices (i.e. the a-index, h(5,2)-index, q(2)-index, r-index, maxprod, e-index, p-index, and weighted h-index) have relatively low correlations with the h-index but are close to Wu's w-index. The normalized h-index and ph-ratio are obviously different from the other indices, and in most cases, their correlation coefficients with the h-index or Wu's w-index are statistically non-significant (p > .05) or negative significant (p < .01). We argue that indices which are neither too near to nor too far from the h-index could be much more promising than others.

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

Weighted citation based on ranking-related contribution: a new index for evaluating article impact

WL-index: Leveraging Citation Mention Number to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Impact

Which h-index? An exploration within the Web of Science

The H L -Index: Improvement of H -Index Based on Quality of Citing Papers

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

E-Index—A Bibliometric Index of Research Efficiency

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

A WoS-based Positive Study on the h-index of Scientists in Natural Sciences

Modification of the Rational h Index by Considering More Citation Information

Research on the Evaluation of Scientists Based on Weighted h-index

PR-Index: Using the H-Index and PageRank for Determining True Impact

An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output

A Positive Study on the H-index of International Core Journals in Natural Sciences

Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index

Comparative Study on H-index Correlative Factors of Journal Papers Published by University Library

Quantifying The Impact Of Hot-Paper On New Researchers

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

Quality Research Follows the Power Law

The inconsistency of the h-index

Do Hirsch-type Indices Behave the Same in Assessing Single Publications? an Empirical Study of 29 Bibliometric Indicators.