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

"Ukraine" in scholarly publications: An analysis based on econLit

Ukraine; EconLit; journal contents;

Origin and emergence of entrepreneurship as a research field

This paper seeks to map out the emergence and evolution of entrepreneurship as an independent field in the social science literature from the early 1990s to 2009. Our analysis indicates that entrepreneurship has grown steadily during the 1990s but has truly emerged as a legitimate academic discipline in the latter part of the 2000s. The field has been dominated by researchers from Anglo-Saxon countries over the past 20 years, with particularly strong representations from the US, UK, and Canada. The results from our structural analysis, which is based on a core document approach, point to five large knowledge clusters and further 16 sub-clusters. We characterize the clusters from their cognitive structure and assess the strength of the relationships between these clusters. In addition, a list of most cited articles is presented and discussed

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

Subfield Effects on the Core of Coauthors

It is examined whether the number ($J$) of (joint) publications of a "main scientist" with her/his coauthors ranked according to rank ($r$) importance, i.e. $J \propto 1/r$, as found by Ausloos [1] still holds for subfields, i.e. when the "main scientist" has worked on different, sometimes overlapping, subfields. Two cases are studied. It is shown that the law holds for large subfields. As shown, in an Appendix, is also useful to combine small topics into large ones for better statistics. It is observed that the sub-cores are much smaller than the overall coauthor core measure. Nevertheless, the smallness of the core and sub-cores may imply further considerations for the evaluation of team research purposes and activities.Comment: 12 figures (can be combined); 37 references; 4 Tables; prepared for and submitted to Scientometric

Scientific impact evaluation and the effect of self-citations: mitigating the bias by discounting h-index

In this paper, we propose a measure to assess scientific impact that discounts self-citations and does not require any prior knowledge on the their distribution among publications. This index can be applied to both researchers and journals. In particular, we show that it fills the gap of h-index and similar measures that do not take into account the effect of self-citations for authors or journals impact evaluation. The paper provides with two real-world examples: in the former, we evaluate the research impact of the most productive scholars in Computer Science (according to DBLP); in the latter, we revisit the impact of the journals ranked in the 'Computer Science Applications' section of SCImago. We observe how self-citations, in many cases, affect the rankings obtained according to different measures (including h-index and ch-index), and show how the proposed measure mitigates this effect

Negotiating Transaction Cost Economics: Oliver Williamson and his audiences

The article studies the interaction between Oliver Williamson and his audiences in the construction of Transaction Cost Economics (TCE). His attentiveness to the feedback from different groups has played a major role in the success of TCE. First we discuss briefly the relevance of rhetoric to the study of economics. Rhetoric stresses that economists talk not to a void, but to peers and lay people with their habits, interests, institutional conditionings and values. Using the toolbox of rhetoric we identify Williamson’s intended audiences. Next we discuss his lists of claimed antecedents and the changes made therein. We explore how those (changing) connections could possibly have incited different audiences. In what follows, we use citation data to delineate his actual readers. This helps compare intended and actual audiences as we close with a discussion of Williamson’s ability to modify his intended reader and widen the audience of TCE in the social sciences.

Markets for Reputation: Evidence on Quality and Quantity in Academe

We develop a theory of the market for individual reputation, an indicator of regard by one’s peers and others. The central questions are: 1) Does the quantity of exposures raise reputation independent of their quality? and 2) Assuming that overall quality matters for reputation, does the quality of an individual’s most important exposure have an extra effect on reputation? Using evidence for academic economists, we find that, conditional on its impact, the quantity of output has no or even a negative effect on each of a number of proxies for reputation, and very little evidence that a scholar's most influential work provides any extra enhancement of reputation. Quality ranking matters more than absolute quality. Data on mobility and salaries show, on the contrary, substantial positive effects of quantity, independent of quality. We test various explanations for the differences between the determinants of reputation and salary.mobility, quality/quantity trade-off, salary determination

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