Does it Matter Which Citation Tool is Used to Compare the h-index of a Group of Highly Cited Researchers?

h-index retrieved by citation indexes (Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science) is used to measure the scientific performance and the research impact studies based on the number of publications and citations of a scientist. It also is easily available and may be used for performance measures of scientists, and for recruitment decisions. The aim of this study is to investigate the difference between the outputs and results from these three citation databases namely Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science based upon the h-index of a group of highly cited researchers (Nobel Prize winner scientist). The purposive sampling method was adopted to collect the required data. The results showed that there is a significant difference in the h-index between three citation indexes of Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science; the Google scholar h-index was more than the h-index in two other databases. It was also concluded that there is a significant positive relationship between h-indices based on Google scholar and Scopus. The citation indexes of Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science may be useful for evaluating h-index of scientists but they have some limitations as well

Does it Matter Which Citation Tool is Used to Compare the h-index of a Group of Highly Cited Researchers?

h-index retrieved by citation indexes (Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science) is used to measure the scientific performance and the research impact studies based on the number of publications and citations of a scientist. It also is easily available and may be used for performance measures of scientists, and for recruitment decisions. The aim of this study is to investigate the difference between the outputs and results from these three citation databases namely Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science based upon the h-index of a group of highly cited researchers (Nobel Prize winner scientist). The purposive sampling method was adopted to collect the required data. The results showed that there is a significant difference in the h-index between three citation indexes of Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science; the Google scholar h-index was more than the h-index in two other databases. It was also concluded that there is a significant positive relationship between h-indices based on Google scholar and Scopus. The citation indexes of Scopus, Google scholar, and Web of Science may be useful for evaluating h-index of scientists but they have some limitations as well.Cite as: Farhadi, H., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Aghaei Chadegani, A., Farhadi, M., Fooladi, M., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). Does it Matter Which Citation Tool is Used to Compare the h-index of a Group of Highly Cited Researchers? Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(4), 198-202. doi: arXiv:1306.072

Publication Trends in Physics Education: A Bibliometric study

A publication trend in Physics Education by employing bibliometric analysis leads the researchers to describe current scientific movement. This paper tries to answer "What do Physics education scientists concentrate in their publications?" by analyzing the productivity and development of publications on the subject category of Physics Education in the period 1980--2013. The Web of Science databases in the research areas of "EDUCATION - EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH" was used to extract the publication trends. The study involves 1360 publications, including 840 articles, 503 proceedings paper, 22 reviews, 7 editorial material, 6 Book review, and one Biographical item. Number of publications with "Physical Education" in topic increased from 0.14 % (n = 2) in 1980 to 16.54 % (n = 225) in 2011. Total number of receiving citations is 8071, with approximately citations per papers of 5.93. The results show the publication and citations in Physic Education has increased dramatically while the Malaysian share is well ranked

Does a long reference list guarantee more citations? Analysis of Malaysian highly cited and review pPapers

Earlier publications have shown that the number of references as well as the number of received citations are field-dependent. Consequently, a long reference list may lead to more citations. The purpose of this article is to study the concrete relationship between number of references and citation counts. This article tries to find an answer for the concrete case of Malaysian highly cited papers and Malaysian review papers. Malaysian paper is a paper with at least one Malaysian affiliation. A total of 2466 papers consisting of two sets, namely 1966 review papers and 500 highly-cited articles, are studied. The statistical analysis shows that an increase in the number of references leads to a slight increase in the number of citations. Yet, this increase is not statistically significant. Therefore, a researcher should not try to increase the number of received citations by artificially increasing the number of references

Inter-field nonlinear transformation of journal impact indicators: The case of the h-index

[EN] Impact indices used for joint evaluation of research items coming from different scientific fields must be comparable. Often a linear transformation -a normalization or another basic operation-is considered to be enough for providing the correct translation to a unified setting in which all the fields are adequately treated. In this paper it is shown that this is not always true. The attention is centered in the case of the h-index. It is proved that it that cannot be translated by means of direct normalization preserving its genuine meaning. According to the universality of citation distribution, it is shown that a slight variant of the h-index is necessary for this notion to produce comparable values when applied to different scientific fields. A complete example concerning a group of top scientists is shown.The first author was supported by Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad under Research Grant CSO2015-65594-C2-1R Y 2R (MINECO/FEDER, UE). The second author was suported by Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad and FEDER under Research Grant MTM2016-77054-C2-1-PFerrer Sapena, A.; Sánchez Pérez, EA. (2019). Inter-field nonlinear transformation of journal impact indicators: The case of the h-index. Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics. 22(2):177-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720502.2019.1616913S177199222Geuna, A., & Piolatto, M. (2016). Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth it (at least for a while). Research Policy, 45(1), 260-271. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.004Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251-261. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102Egghe, L. (2010). The Hirsch index and related impact measures. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 65-114. doi:10.1002/aris.2010.1440440109Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Testing the validity of the Hirsch-index for research assessment purposes. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 157-160. doi:10.3152/095820208x319175Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273-289. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001Imperial, J., & Rodríguez-Navarro, A. (2007). Usefulness of Hirsch’s h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain. Scientometrics, 71(2), 271-282. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1665-4Aoun, S. G., Bendok, B. R., Rahme, R. J., Dacey, R. G., & Batjer, H. H. (2013). Standardizing the Evaluation of Scientific and Academic Performance in Neurosurgery—Critical Review of the «h» Index and its Variants. World Neurosurgery, 80(5), e85-e90. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2012.01.052Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2011). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406-415. doi:10.1002/asi.21678Rousseau, R., García-Zorita, C., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2013). The h-bubble. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 294-300. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.012Burrell, Q. L. (2013). The h-index: A case of the tail wagging the dog? Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 774-783. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.06.004Schreiber, M. (2013). How relevant is the predictive power of the h-index? A case study of the time-dependent Hirsch index. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 325-329. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.001Khan, N. R., Thompson, C. J., Taylor, D. R., Gabrick, K. S., Choudhri, A. F., Boop, F. R., & Klimo, P. (2013). Part II: Should the h-Index Be Modified? An Analysis of the m-Quotient, Contemporary h-Index, Authorship Value, and Impact Factor. World Neurosurgery, 80(6), 766-774. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2013.07.011Schreiber, M. (2013). A case study of the arbitrariness of the h-index and the highly-cited-publications indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 379-387. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.006Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. doi:10.1038/520429aDienes, K. R. (2015). Completing h. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 385-397. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.003Ayaz, S., & Afzal, M. T. (2016). Identification of conversion factor for completing-h index for the field of mathematics. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1511-1524. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2122-zWaltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365-391. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2008). Generalizing the h- and g-indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 263-271. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.09.004Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2008). An h-index weighted by citation impact. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 770-780. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.05.003Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharromán, C. (2007). Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73(3), 303-320. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1805-xEgghe, L. (2008). Examples of simple transformations of the h-index: Qualitative and quantitative conclusions and consequences for other indices. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 136-148. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.12.003Schreiber, M. (2015). Restricting the h-index to a publication and citation time window: A case study of a timed Hirsch index. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 150-155. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.12.00

Cardiologia Croatica and the Application of Advanced Information Technology in Publishing.

Napredne informatičke tehnologije primjenom mrežnih alata mogu unaprijediti elektroničko izdanje časopisa i omogućiti bolju dostupnost i utjecaj objavljenih članaka. U članku se opisuju sustavi jedinstvenoga brojčanog obilježavanja članaka, proširljivoga jezika za označavanje, jedinstvenoga mrežnog identiteta autora te sustav QR kodova. Sve te sustave primjenjivat će i časopis Cardiologia Croatica, s ciljem većeg znanstvenog utjecaja i daljnjeg uključenja u međunarodne citatne bazeAdvanced information technology can improve electronic editions of journals and facilitate better availability and impact of published articles through the use of web tools. This article describes systems of digital object identifier, extensible markup language, the unique web identity of authors, and the Quick Response code system. All these systems will be applied by the Cardiologia Croatica, with the final goal of a larger scientific impact of the journal and further inclusion into international citation databases

Publication Trends in Physics Education: A Bibliometric study

A publication trend in Physics Education by employing bibliometric analysis leads the researchers to describe current scientific movement. This paper tries to answer “What do Physics education scientists concentrate in their publications?” by analyzing the productivity and development of publications on the subject category of Physics Education in the period 1980–2013. The Web of Science databases in the research areas of “EDUCATION - EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH” was used to extract the publication trends. The study involves 1360 publications, including 840 articles, 503 proceedings paper, 22 reviews, 7 editorial material, 6 Book review, and one Biographical item. Number of publications with “Physical Education” in topic increased from 0.14 % (n = 2) in 1980 to 16.54 % (n = 225) in 2011. Total number of receiving citations is 8071, with approximately citations per papers of 5.93. The results show the publication and citations in Physic Education has increased dramatically while the Malaysian share is well ranked

Análisis de la implementación Schema.org en el repositorio RODERIC e impacto en el posicionamiento en Google y Google Scholar

Se presenta la implementación de Schema.org en el repositorio RODERIC de la Universitat de València. Para el análisis del impacto de la implementación se han definido ocho indicadores que se han analizado en Google Search y Google Scholar según el caso: visitas, visitas a registros bibliográficos, documentos descargados, impresiones, clics, CTR, posición media en la SERP y posición en la SERP que fueron analizados durante dos períodos consecutivos de un año, antes y después de la implementación. Los resultados obtenidos muestran resultados desiguales para ambos buscadores. En el caso de Google Search, a pesar de conseguirse un incremento considerable en el número de impresiones (21,05%), tanto los clics (10,38%), como el número de sesiones (15,03%) descienden. En el caso de Google Scholar, las sesiones se incrementan ligeramente (6,25%). El número de registros visualizados y de descargas de documentos del repositorio mejora en un 16,21% y 12,18%, respectivamente