View More View Less
  • 1 REQUIMTE/Departamento de Química e Bioquimica, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre, 687, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal
  • | 2 REQUIMTE/Departamento Engenharia Industrial e Gestão, Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, s/n, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
Restricted access

Abstract

The assessment of individual researchers using bibliometric indicators is more complex than that of a region, country or university. For large scientific bodies, averages over a large number of researchers and their outputs is generally believed to give indication of the quality of the research work. For an individual, the detailed peer evaluation of his research outputs is required and, even this, may fail in the short term to make a final, long term assessment of the relevance and originality of the work. Scientometrics assessment at individual level is not an easy task not only due to the smaller number of publications that are being evaluated, but other factors can influence significantly the bibliometric indicators applied. Citation practices vary widely among disciplines and sub disciplines and this may justify the lack of good bibliometric indicators at individual level. The main goal of this study was to develop an indicator that considers in its calculation some of the aspects that we must take into account on the assessment of scientific performance at individual level. The indicator developed, the hnf index, considers the different cultures of citation of each field and the number of authors per publication. The results showed that the hnf index can be used on the assessment of scientific performance of individual researchers and for following the performance of a researcher.

  • Ahmed, T, Johnson, B, Oppenheim, C, Peck, C 2004 Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited. Part II. The 1953 Watson and Crick article on the structure of DNA. Scientometrics 61 2 147156 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Aksnes, DW 2003 A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics 56 2 235246 .

  • Alonso, S, Cabrerizo, FJ, Herrera-Viedma, E, Herrera, F 2010 Hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the H- and G-indices. Scientometrics 82 2 391400 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Batista, PD, Campiteli, MG, Kinouchi, O, Martinez, AS 2006 Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?. Scientometrics 68 1 179189 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bonzi, S, Snyder, HW 1991 Motivations for citation—a comparison of self citation and citation to others. Scientometrics 21 2 245254 .

  • Brooks, TA 1985 Private acts and public objects—an investigation of citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 36 4 223229 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brooks, TA 1986 Evidence of complex citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 37 1 3436.

  • Burrell, Q, Rousseau, R 1995 Fractional counts for authorship attribution—a numerical study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 46 2 97102 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Claro, J., & Costa, C. A. V. (2010). A made-to-measure indicator for cross-disciplinary bibliometric ranking of researchers performance. Scientometrics. doi: .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cole, JR, Cole, S 1973 Social stratification in science The University of Chicago Press Chicago.

  • Egghe, L 2006 Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 69 1 131152 .

  • Egghe, L 2008 Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 10 16081616 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frost, CO 1989 The literature of online public-access catalogs, 1980–85—an analysis of citation patterns. Library Resources & Technical Services 33 4 344357.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Glanzel, W, Thijs, B 2004 Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations?. Scientometrics 61 3 395404 .

  • Jin, BH, Liang, LM, Rousseau, R, Egghe, L 2007 The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin 52 6 855863 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prathap, G 2010 Is there a place for a mock h-index?. Scientometrics 84 1 153165 .

  • Rons, N, Amez, L 2009 Impact vitality: An indicator based on citing publications in search of excellent scientists. Research Evaluation 18 3 233241 (Article).

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schreiber, M 2009 A case study of the modified hirsch index h(m) accounting for multiple coauthors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 6 12741282 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • G van Hooydonk 1997 Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48 10 944945 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AFJ van Raan 2004 Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics 59 3 467472 .

  • Vieira, ES, Gomes, JANF 2009 A comparison of Scopus and Web of science for a typical university. Scientometrics 81 2 587600 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vieira, ES, Gomes, JANF 2010 Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features. Journal of Informetrics 4 1 113 .

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation