Cargando…

Evaluation of the Scientific Outputs of Researchers with Similar H Index: a Critical Approach

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: h-index has been always reviewed as one of the most useful criteria for evaluating the scientific outputs of researchers by the sciencometric experts. In this study, the h-index of 40 Iranian researchers accompanied with its relationship to assessment criteria of scientific o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ahangar, Hemmat Gholinia, Siamian, Hasan, Yaminfirooz, Mousa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AVICENA, d.o.o., Sarajevo 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4216429/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25395728
http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/aim.2014.22.255-258
_version_ 1782342264207441920
author Ahangar, Hemmat Gholinia
Siamian, Hasan
Yaminfirooz, Mousa
author_facet Ahangar, Hemmat Gholinia
Siamian, Hasan
Yaminfirooz, Mousa
author_sort Ahangar, Hemmat Gholinia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: h-index has been always reviewed as one of the most useful criteria for evaluating the scientific outputs of researchers by the sciencometric experts. In this study, the h-index of 40 Iranian researchers accompanied with its relationship to assessment criteria of scientific outputs such as the number of articles, scientific age, number of citations and self-citation were reviewed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first part of this study was related to the literature review. But the information of 40 Iranian researchers’ Citation Reports was observational extracted from WOS database and the Pearson correlation coefficient test was used to answer the research hypotheses RESULTS: Citation analysis showed that 40 selected researchers published 877 articles in web of science up to 9 January 2013. These articles have been cited 3858 time. The average of their h-index was estimated 38.5 ±12.12 Correlation coefficient test showed that there was a significant and direct relationship between the h-index and the number of papers, the number of citations and self-citation (Sig>0.05) but there was no significant relationship between scientific age and h-index (Sig> 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the data showed that the quantitative and qualitative indicators of the researchers with the same h-index had considerable differences. Therefore, only the h-index should not be a criterion for scientific ranking of the researchers and other complementary indexes such as M parameter and G index along with h-index must be used to be able to more accurately determine the degree of scientific influence of the researchers with the same h.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4216429
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher AVICENA, d.o.o., Sarajevo
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42164292014-11-13 Evaluation of the Scientific Outputs of Researchers with Similar H Index: a Critical Approach Ahangar, Hemmat Gholinia Siamian, Hasan Yaminfirooz, Mousa Acta Inform Med Original Paper BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: h-index has been always reviewed as one of the most useful criteria for evaluating the scientific outputs of researchers by the sciencometric experts. In this study, the h-index of 40 Iranian researchers accompanied with its relationship to assessment criteria of scientific outputs such as the number of articles, scientific age, number of citations and self-citation were reviewed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first part of this study was related to the literature review. But the information of 40 Iranian researchers’ Citation Reports was observational extracted from WOS database and the Pearson correlation coefficient test was used to answer the research hypotheses RESULTS: Citation analysis showed that 40 selected researchers published 877 articles in web of science up to 9 January 2013. These articles have been cited 3858 time. The average of their h-index was estimated 38.5 ±12.12 Correlation coefficient test showed that there was a significant and direct relationship between the h-index and the number of papers, the number of citations and self-citation (Sig>0.05) but there was no significant relationship between scientific age and h-index (Sig> 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the data showed that the quantitative and qualitative indicators of the researchers with the same h-index had considerable differences. Therefore, only the h-index should not be a criterion for scientific ranking of the researchers and other complementary indexes such as M parameter and G index along with h-index must be used to be able to more accurately determine the degree of scientific influence of the researchers with the same h. AVICENA, d.o.o., Sarajevo 2014-08 2014-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4216429/ /pubmed/25395728 http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/aim.2014.22.255-258 Text en Copyright: © AVICENA http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Ahangar, Hemmat Gholinia
Siamian, Hasan
Yaminfirooz, Mousa
Evaluation of the Scientific Outputs of Researchers with Similar H Index: a Critical Approach
title Evaluation of the Scientific Outputs of Researchers with Similar H Index: a Critical Approach
title_full Evaluation of the Scientific Outputs of Researchers with Similar H Index: a Critical Approach
title_fullStr Evaluation of the Scientific Outputs of Researchers with Similar H Index: a Critical Approach
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the Scientific Outputs of Researchers with Similar H Index: a Critical Approach
title_short Evaluation of the Scientific Outputs of Researchers with Similar H Index: a Critical Approach
title_sort evaluation of the scientific outputs of researchers with similar h index: a critical approach
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4216429/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25395728
http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/aim.2014.22.255-258
work_keys_str_mv AT ahangarhemmatgholinia evaluationofthescientificoutputsofresearcherswithsimilarhindexacriticalapproach
AT siamianhasan evaluationofthescientificoutputsofresearcherswithsimilarhindexacriticalapproach
AT yaminfiroozmousa evaluationofthescientificoutputsofresearcherswithsimilarhindexacriticalapproach