Theory and practise of the g-index

By Leo Egghe. Scientometrics, 2006

2,216 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/73f5c0b199f78e9d0b846350ac27c8a029907806

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2015, methodology): “A large number of variants and extensions of the h-index have been proposed in the literature, of which the g-index (Egghe, 2006) is probably the one that is best known. Some counterintuitive properties of the hindex are highlighted by Waltman and Van Eck (2012a). In this review, no detailed discuss”
An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example (2012, background): “The forward local and global main paths together, as expected, show that the field’s development evolved around empiricalworks that confirmed its usefulness (BornmannD2005, Schreiber2007a), theoretical works that expanded its mathematical foundation (Glänzel2006, EggheR2006), and new variants that b”
h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields (2009, methodology): “Egghe's main concern with the h-index is that highly cited papers are important for the determination of the h-index, but once they are selected to belong to the top h papers, it is unimportant the number of citations they receive (Egghe (2006)).”
Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar (2008, background): “Some researchers recommend different types of improvements to the h-index [BATISTA & AL., 2006; EGGHE, 2006B; SIDIROPOULUS & AL., 2006; IGLESIAS & PECHORROMAN, 2006].”
Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks (2007, background): “After the introduction of the h-index, a number of other proposals followed, either presenting case studies using it [2, 4, 9, 10, 26, 28], or describing a new variation of it [12] (aiming to bridge the gap between the lower bound of total number of citations calculated by h-index and their real num”
A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Business Research between 1973 and 2014 (2015, background): “The literature offersmany othermeasures including the g-index (Egghe, 2006) and the hg-index (Alonso, Cabrerizo, Herrera-Viedma, & Herrera, 2009).”
When Less Is More: Effects of Grade Skipping on Adult STEM Productivity Among Mathematically Precocious Adolescents (2013, background): “In order to give more weight to heavily cited publications, the g-index (Egghe, 2006) is the largest number such that an author’s top g articles received together at least g2 citations.”
Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2017, methodology): “…introduces the now widely known h-index (Hirsch, 2005), the subsequent introduction of g-index as a refinement by taking citations into account (Egghe, 2006), a 2007 study that compares the impact of using the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar on citation-based ranking (Meho & Yang,…”
Library 2.0: A guide to participatory library service (2008, neutral): “Egghe (2006c) calculated h index values and g index values for (still active) Derek de Solla Price Medallists and found that “the ranked g-index column resembles more the overall feeling of ‘visibility’ or ‘life time achievement’ than does the ranked h-index column” (p. 144).”
Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016) (2018, background): “Since Jorge Hirsch (2005) proposed the h-index, is has drawn increasingly higher attention by researchers, among which Egghe (2006), Jin et al. (2007), Bornmann and Daniel (2008), Bornmann et al. (2011), and Waltman and Van Eck (2012a) have a relatively large inﬂuence.”
Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact (2008, background): “Citation analysis is a bibliometric tool that is becoming increasingly popular to evaluate the performance of different actors in the academic and scientific arena, ranging from individual scholars [1, 2, 3], to journals, departments, universities [4] and national institutions [5] up to whole countr”
Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact (2013, background): “ns. ! 2! Of the many tangible measures of scientific impact one stands out in its frequency of use: citations (1–10). The reliance on citation based measures, from the Hirsch index (4) to the g-index (11), from impact factors (1) to eigenfactors (12), and on diverse ranking based metrics (13), lies ”
An improvement of the h-index: the g-index (2006, background): “In [3] the analogous formula for the gindex has been proved to be 1 1 g T 2 α α α α α − ⎛ ⎞ − ⎟ ⎜ = ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎝ ⎠ − In [4] [5] a theory is presented to calculate the evolution of the h-and g-index in function of time.”
Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields (2017, positive): “– SciMAT builds science maps enriched with bibliometric measures based on citations such as: h-index [33], g-index [23], hg-index [2], q2-index [9], etc.”