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, C2004Highly 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. Scientometrics612147–156.
Ahmed, T, Johnson, B, Oppenheim, C, Peck, C2004Highly 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. Scientometrics612147–15610.1023/B:SCIE.0000041645.60907.57.)| false
Alonso, S, Cabrerizo, FJ, Herrera-Viedma, E, Herrera, F2010Hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the H- and G-indices. Scientometrics822391–40010.1007/s11192-009-0047-510.1007/s11192-009-0047-5.)| false
Burrell, Q, Rousseau, R1995Fractional counts for authorship attribution—a numerical study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science46297–10210.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199503)46:2<97::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-L.)| false
Egghe, L2008Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59101608–161610.1002/asi.2084510.1002/asi.20845.)| false
Rons, N, Amez, L2009Impact vitality: An indicator based on citing publications in search of excellent scientists. Research Evaluation183233–24110.3152/095820209x47056310.3152/095820209X470563 (Article).)| false
Schreiber, M2009A case study of the modified hirsch index h(m) accounting for multiple coauthors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology6061274–128210.1002/asi.2105710.1002/asi.21057.)| false
Gvan Hooydonk1997Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science4810944–94510.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199710)48:10<944::AID-ASI8>3.0.CO;2-1.)| false
Vieira, ES, Gomes, JANF2010Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features. Journal of Informetrics411–1310.1016/j.joi.2009.06.00210.1016/j.joi.2009.06.002.)| false