On the Opportunities and Limitations of the H-index

By Wolfgang Glänzel. 2006

203 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77a818db768ff9ab51e76b8cc0c700358bc31be3

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

A Comparative Analysis of the Application of H-index, G-index, and A-index in Institutional-Level Research Evaluation (2010, methodology): “Using data directly from Web of Science alone might be another problem when calculating h-index (Batista et al., 2006; Bornmann & Daniel, 2007; Glänzel, 2006; Kelly & Jennions, 2006; Van Raan, 2006).”
Reflections on recent developments of the h-index and h-type indices (2008, methodology): “This list is mainly derived from Hirsch[1],Glänzel [5]and Liu & Rousseau [6].”
Theory and practise of the g-index (2006, methodology): “This is considered by GLÄNZEL (2006a) to be a drawback of the h-index, giving a small h value to a small (but highly cited) article set (he calls it “small is not beautiful”).”
Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis (2008, background): “…preferable to other single-number criteria, such as the total number of papers, the total number of citations and citations per paper The advantage of the h-index is that it combines an assessment of both quantity (number of papers) and quality (impact, or citations to these papers) (Glänzel 2006 .”
An improvement of the h-index: the g-index (2006, background): “In the references [1,2,7,9] one describes some advantages of this new scientometric indicator: It is a simple single number incorporating both publication (quantitiy) and citation (quality or visibility) scores and hence has an advantage over these single separate measures and over measures such as ”