Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Yuxian Liu x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract  

We present an application of the h-index in a context which does not include publications or citations. Rankings of library classification categories using the h-, g-and R-index are shown to be statistically equivalent. Moreover these indices seem to have the same discriminating power, as measured by the Gini concentration index. We further present best fitting Zipf-Mandelbrot functions for the h-distributions of classifications in different libraries.

Restricted access

Abstract  

Two types of series of h-indices for journals published in the field of Horticulture during the period 1998–2007 are calculated. Type I h-indices are based on yearly data, while type II h-indices use cumulative data. These h-indices are also considered in a form normalised with respect to the number of published articles. It is observed that type I h-indices, normalised or not, decrease linearly over a period of ten years. The type II series, however, is not linear in nature: it exhibits partly a concave shape. This proves that the journals (in Horticulture) do not exhibit a linear increase in h-index as argued by Hirsch in the case of life-time achievements of scientists. In the second part of the paper, an attempt is made to study the relative visibility of a journal and its change over time, based on h-indices of journals. It is shown that: –  the h-index over the complete period 1998–2007 of the journal Theoretical & Applied Genetics (h = 62) is much higher than that of all other journals in the field –  the relation between the number of publications and the type II h-index for the whole period is not an exact power law (as it would have to be if the Egghe-Rousseau model were applicable) –  in order to study the dynamic aspects of journal visibility, a field-relative normalised h-ratio is defined to monitor systematic changes in the field of Horticulture. Except for two journals, the Pearson correlation coefficient for yearly values of this field-relative normalised h-ratio indicates that there is no systematic change of the performance of the journals with respect to the field as a whole.

Restricted access