Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?

By P. Batista, Mônica G. Campiteli, Osame Kinouchi. Scientometrics, 2005

815 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The number h of papers with at least h citations has been proposed to evaluate individuals scientific research production. This index is robust in several ways but yet strongly dependent on the research field. We propose a complementary index ) ( 2 T a I N h h = , with ) (T a N being the total number of authors in the considered h papers. A researcher with index hI has hI papers with at least hI citation if he/she had published alone. We have obtained the rank plots of h and h I for four Brazilian scientific communities. In contrast with the h-index, the h I index rank plots collapse into a single curve allowing comparison among different research areas.

Subfields: Statistical and Nonlinear Physics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fa40f17af7a57e9f78e0ef9f57b9fff97f805c59

How researchers see this paper

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

In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

What do we know about the h index? (2007, background): “ Batista et al. (2006) obtained rank plots of h and hI values for four fields of scientific research in Brazil.”
K-means properties on six clustering benchmark datasets (2018, methodology): “Based on the hubness score, we define the h-index of the data set similarly as it has been used to measure the scientific impact of scholars and publications [45].”
A review of theory and practice in scientometrics (2015, background): “Batista et al. (2006) developed the hI-index as the h-index divided by the mean number of authors of the h-core papers.”
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, Glanzel and Schubert, 2005) started”
An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example (2012, background): “The largest traversal count among all routes leading to BraunGS2006 is from BatistaCKM2006 (Batista et al., 2006) at 15,350; yet, the largest traversal count among all routes leading to EggheR2006 is 33,286 from Vanraan2006 (van Raan, 2006).”
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2015, background): “Batista et al. (2006) and Wan et al. (2007) suggest to divide the h-index by a correction factor that depends on the number of co-authors someone has.”
Library 2.0: A guide to participatory library service (2008, neutral): “For this reason, we did not use the standardizations of the h index for comparing scientists that work in different scientific fields developed by Batista, Campiteli, and Kinouchi (2006) , Iglesias and Pecharroman (2007a, 2007b), Imperial and Rodriguez-Navarro (2007), and Levitt and Thelwall (2007)”
The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level (2007, background): “Several attempts have already pointed in this direction (Batista et al., 2005, 2006; Egghe, 2006a, 2006b; Rousseau, 2006a).”
h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields (2009, methodology): “In the same paper Schreiber mentions that an alternative but similar approach called hI-index was used by Batista et al. (2006) and further discussed in Bornmann and Daniel (2007b); Imperial and Rodŕıguez-Navarro (2007). In this approach, the papers are counted fractionally according to the mean num”