Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups

  title={Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups},
  author={Anthony F. J. van Raan},
  • A. Raan
  • Published 24 November 2005
  • Business
  • Scientometrics
In this paper we present characteristics of the statistical correlation between the Hirsch (h-) index and several standard bibliometric indicators, as well as with the results of peer review judgment. We use the results of a large evaluation study of 147 university chemistry research groups in the Netherlands covering the work of about 700 senior researchers during the period 1991–2000. Thus, we deal with research groups rather than individual scientists, as we consider the research group as… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Analysis of bibliometric indicators for individual scholars in a large data set
This work analyzes the scientific profile of more than 30,000 researchers, and finds that the h-index of a scientist is strongly correlated with the number of citations that she/he has received so that theNumber of citations can be effectively be used as a proxy of theh-index.
Peer review versus the h-index for evaluation of individual researchers in the biological sciences
  • S. Johnson
  • Biology
    South African Journal of Science
  • 2020
The NRF rating system is equitable in the sense that the outcomes of peer review are generally consistent with bibliometric measures of research performance across different disciplines in the biological sciences, however, the study did reveal some notable discrepancies.
Comparative analysis of some individual bibliometric indices when applied to groups of researchers
A comparative analysis of some bibliometric indicators originally designed to measure the overall impact of individual scientific production, when applied to the evaluation of groups, indicates that the consistency at distinct aggregative levels is met with reasonable frequency.
Since Hirsch’s first publication of the h-index in 2005 (Hirsch, 2005), this new measure of academic impact has generated a widespread interest. At the time of writing (January 2007) Google Scholar
Citation metrics as an additional indicator for evaluating research performance? An analysis of their correlations and validity
This paper uses research performance data of German business schools and considers the linear correlations and the rank correlations between publication-based, supportive, and citation-based indicators to investigate the potential expansion of an indicator set for research performance evaluation to include citations.
Predicting results of the Research Excellence Framework using departmental h-index
It is demonstrated that a version of the departmental h-index is better correlated with the actual results of that peer-review exercise than a competing metric known as the normalised citation-based indicator.
Assessing the Scientific Impact of Individual Scholars With Multi-Scale H-Index
A novel multi-scale h-index (MH-index, or Ma-Huang index) is proposed to comprehensively measure the scientific impact of scholars based on the publication record to be more balanced and fine-grained for evaluating and comparing the scientificimpact of individual scientists.
Central indexes to the citation distribution: a complement to the h-index
Two original sets of indexes, the central area indexes and the central interval indexes, that complement the h-index to include the central shape of the citation distribution, are proposed and compared.


Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations
  • A. Raan
  • Economics
    J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol.
  • 2006
An empirical approach to the study of the statistical properties of bibliometric indicators on a very relevant but not simply ‘available’ aggregation level: the research group finds that at the level of research groups the distribution functions of the main indicators, particularly the journal- normalized and the field-normalized indicators are approaching normal distributions.
Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises
  • A. Raan
  • Computer Science
  • 2005
An overview of the potentials and limitations of bibliometric methods for the assessment of strengths and weaknesses in research performance, and for monitoring scientific developments, and how both approaches can be combined to a broader and powerful methodology to observe scientific advancement and the role of actors.
Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?
This work has obtained the rank plots of h and h I for four Brazilian scientific communities and found the h I index rank plots collapse into a single curve allowing comparison among different research areas.
Measuring Science: Capita Selecta of Current Main Issues
After a review of developments in the quantitative study of science, particularly since the early 1970s, I focus on two current main lines of 'measuring science' based on bibliometric analysis. With
Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work?
It was found that on average the h-index for successful applicants for post-doctoral research fellowships was consistently higher than for non-successful applicants.
Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods
A system of input, output, and efficiency indicators is sketched out, with each indicator related to basic research, applied research, and experimental development. Mainly, this scheme is inspired by
A parameter to quantify dynamics of a researcher's scientific activity
I propose the coefficient, $t_h$, and its modification $N_t$ which in a simple way reflect dynamics of scientific activity of an individual researcher. I determine $t_h$ as a time period (from some
An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship
I propose the index $$\hbar$$ (“hbar”), defined as the number of papers of an individual that have citation count larger than or equal to the $$\hbar$$ of all coauthors of each paper, as a useful
Index aims for fair ranking of scientists
‘H-index’ sums up publication record.