Index aims for fair ranking of scientists

By Philip Ball. Nature, 2005

413 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Reproductive Medicine, Transportation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/86d9bd02b708ab68f5c36578510d22cd860f8053

How researchers see this paper

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

In Information Systems and Management

In Reproductive Medicine

In Transportation

Citations in the corpus

To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts (2008, methodology): “For the present investigation, I have selected those scientists who were mentioned by Ball [2].”
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 ”
Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists (2006, background): “It has generated considerable interest (e.g., Dumé, 2005) and attracted largely favorable comment (e.g., Ball, 2005).”
h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields (2009, background): “This good properties made some of the most important journals to take interest on it (Ball (2005)).”
The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level (2007, background): “The scientific community has shown a huge interest for this indicator, as shown by the high number of publications on the topic (Ball, 2005; Cho, 2005; Dume, 2005a, 2005b; Glanzel, 2006; Monastersky, 2005; Nazaroff, 2005; Nature, 2005; Popov, 2005).”
Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups (2005, background): “Scientific news editors (e.g., Ball 2005) enthusiastically received the new index, and researchers in various fields of science (e.g., Popov, 2005; Batista et al, 2005), particularly in the bibliometric research community (e.g., Bornmann and Daniel, 2005; Braun, Glänzel and Schubert, 2005) started…”
Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability (2012, background): “It is also a criterion for the evaluation and ranking of departments and universities (Ball, 2005; Haslam et al., 2008; Nosek et al., 2010; Ostriker, Holland, Kuh, & Voytuk, 2009; Phillips, 2007).”
Simple models and the corresponding h- and g-index (2006, background): “Introduction Recently the Hirsch-index, in short: h-index, has attracted a lot of attention in the scientific community (Ball, 2005; Bornmann & Daniel, 2005; Liang, 2006; Egghe, 2006c; Egghe & Rousseau, 2006; Rousseau, 2007).”
Theory and practise of the g-index (2006, background): “Recently the physicist HIRSCH (2005)) introduced the so-called h-index – see also BALL (2005), BRAUN et al.”
What do we know about the h index? (2007, background): “The proposed new measure of research performance was quickly taken up by Nature ( Ball, 2005 ) and Science (Anonymous, 2005).”
Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? (2005, background): “HIRSCH (2005) has proposed the h-index as a single-number criterion to evaluate the scientific output of a researcher (BALL, 2005): A scientist has index h if h of his/her Np papers have at least h citations each, and the other (Np − h) papers have fewer than h citations each.”