The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual’s research output

  title={The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual’s research output},
  author={Fiorenzo Franceschini and Maurizio Galetto and Domenico Augusto Maisano and Luca Mastrogiacomo},
Among the most recent bibliometric indicators for normalizing the differences among fields of science in terms of citation behaviour, Kosmulski (J Informetr 5(3):481–485, 2011) proposed the NSP (number of successful paper) index. According to the authors, NSP deserves much attention for its great simplicity and immediate meaning—equivalent to those of the h-index—while it has the disadvantage of being prone to manipulation and not very efficient in terms of statistical significance. In the… 
Evaluating research institutions: the potential of the success-index
This paper exemplifies the potential of the success-index by means of several practical applications, respectively: comparison of groups of researchers within the same scientific field, but affiliated with different universities, comparison of different departments of the same university, and comparison of entire research institutions.
An informetric model for the success-index
h-index and its alternative: A Review
The main objective of this article is to study all those indicators which have been proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of an individual researcher or a group of researchers.
The citer-success-index: a citer-based indicator to select a subset of elite papers
The goal of this paper is introducing the citer-success-index (cs-index), i.e. an indicator that uses the number of different citers as a proxy for the impact of a generic set of papers. For each of
Commonly Used Indexes for Assessment of Research Production
In this chapter, selected indicators and indexes (constructed on the basis of research publications and/or on the basis of a set of citations of these publications) are discussed. These indexes are
How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations
This study aims to set up proposals how to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences, and includes recommendations for a set of indicators to be used for evaluating researchers.
H-index Sequences across Fields: A Comparative Analysis
The results of this study show that the average h-index sequences behave differently for the datasets, which is partly due to the different sample sizes, and further research will be needed to confirm if every research field behaves differently.
Exploring the Hjif-Index, an Analogue to the H-Like Index for Journal Impact Factors
The hjif-index can be used as a tool to rank journals in a manner that better reflects the variable number of journals within a given JCR group and in each group’s hJif-core as an alternative to the more arbitrary JCR-based percentile ranking.
Research quality evaluation: comparing citation counts considering bibliometric database errors
A methodology for the pair-wise comparison of publication portfolios is presented, which takes into account the database quality regarding omitted citations, and a test for establishing if a citation count is (or not) significantly higher than one other.


Analysis of the Hirsch index's operational properties
New developments related to the Hirsch index
It is shown that the h-index on the one hand, and the A- and g-indices on the other, measure different things, and it would seem that the g-index is the more useful of the two.
Integrated Impact Indicators (I3) compared with Impact Factors (IFs): An alternative research design with policy implications
I3 is compared with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories (“Information Science & Library Science” and “Multidisciplinary Sciences”), and the library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations.
Measuring the research contribution of management academics using the Hirsch-index
This paper applies the Hirsch-index (h-index) to three groups of management academics—BAM Fellows, INFORMS Fellows and members of COPIOR—in order to evaluate the extent to which the h-index would serve as a reliable measure of the contribution of researchers in the management field.
Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis
It is argued that these metrics provide additional advantages over the JIF and that the free availability of GS allows for a democratization of citation analysis as it provides every academic access to citation data regardless of their institution's financial means.
Bibliometric positioning of scientific manufacturing journals: a comparative analysis
This article analyzes some of the most popular scientific journals in the Manufacturing field from the point of view of four bibliometric indicators: the ISI impact factor (ISI-IF), the Hirsch (h)
Impact factors: use and abuse.
The impact factor is only one of three standardized measures created by the Institute of Scientific Information, which can be used to measure the way a journal receives citations to its articles over time, and is a measure of how long articles in a journal continue to be cited after publication.
An informetric model for the Hirsch-index
It is shown that in each practical situation an IPP always has a unique h-index, which is based on the total number of items in Lotkaian systems.
Hirsch index or Hirsch rate? Some thoughts arising from Liang’s data
This work re-analyse a previously published data set which reveals that in many cases the h-rate, according to theory, is not constant, and suggests ways in which deeper scientometric investigations could be carried out.