The influence of self-citation corrections on Egghe's g index

The g index was introduced by Leo Egghe as an improvement of Hirsch's index h for measuring the overall citation record of a set of articles. It better takes into account the highly skewed frequency distribution of citations than the h index. I propose to sharpen this g index by excluding the self-citations. I have worked out nine practical cases in physics and compare the h and g values with and without self-citations. As expected, the g index characterizes the data set better than the h index. The influence of the self-citations appears to be more significant for the g index than for the h index.Comment: 9 pages, 2 figures, submitted to Scientometric

A RATIONAL, SUCCESSIVE G-INDEX APPLIED TO ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS IN IRELAND

A rational, successive g-index is proposed, and applied to economics departments in Ireland. The successive g-index has greater discriminatory power than the successive h-index, and the rational index performs better still. The rational, successive g-index is also more robust to difference in department size.rankings, individuals, departments

Bounds and Inequalities Relating h-Index, g-Index, e-Index and Generalized Impact Factor

Finding relationships among different indices such as h-index, g-index, e-index, and generalized impact factor is a challenging task. In this paper, we describe some bounds and inequalities relating h-index, g-index, e-index, and generalized impact factor. We derive the bounds and inequalities relating these indexing parameters from their basic definitions and without assuming any continuous model to be followed by any of them.Comment: 17 pages, 6 figures, 5 table

OF THE H-INDEX AND ITS ALTERNATIVES: AN APPLICATION TO THE 100 MOST PROLIFIC ECONOMISTS

The h-index is a recent but already quite popular way of measuring research quality and quantity. However, it discounts highly-cited papers. The g-index corrects for this, but it is sensitivity to the number of never-cited papers. Besides, h- or g-index-based rankings have a large number of ties. Therefore, this paper introduces two new indices, and tests their performance for the 100 most prolific economists. A researcher has a t-number (f-number) of t (f) if t (f) is the largest number for which it holds that she has t (f) publications for which the geometric (harmonic) average number of citations is at least t (f). The new indices overcome the shortcomings of the old indices.rankings

Development G-Index and H-Index : Dgh-Index

Of the most  important  indicators such as the h-index ,a method of measuring the productivity and impact of an academic's work, is often used as a component or metric in the ranking of higher education institutions and their staff then proposed the g index as a modification of the h index. So the g-index, have been Trying to develop and improve the disadvantage  in h-index. and  although the g-index can provide a more comprehensive measure of scientific contribution, but value g-index  is integer where  two authors or more than may be get the same g-index value although different  number  of citations and papers, making it difficult to differentiate performance  between authors so in paper we suggest improvement index to resolve this problem is called dgh-index  that gives new features to g-index  and h-index  that  give us real number not an integer

The relevance of the ‘h’ and ‘g’ index to economics in the context of a nation-wide research evaluation scheme: The New Zealand case

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relevance of the citation-based ‘h’ and ‘g’ indexes as a means for measuring research output in economics. This study is unique in that it is the first to utilize the ‘h’ and ‘g’ indexes in the context of a time limited evaluation period and to provide comprehensive coverage of all academic economists in all university-based economics departments within a nation state. For illustration purposes we have selected New Zealand’s Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF) as our evaluation scheme. In order to provide a frame of reference for ‘h’ and ‘g’ index output measures, we have also estimated research output using a number of journal-based weighting schemes. In general, our findings suggest that ‘h’ and ‘g’ index scores are strongly associated with low-powered journal ranking schemes and weakly associated with high powered journal weighting schemes. More specifically, we found the ‘h’ and ‘g’ indexes to suffer from a lack of differentiation: for example, 52 percent of all participants received a score of zero under both measures, and 92 and 89 percent received scores of two or less under ‘h’ and ‘g’, respectively. Overall, our findings suggest that ‘h’ and ‘g’ indexes should not be incorporated into a PBRF-like framework