Rankings Scientists, Journals and Countries using h-Index

Indexes in scientometrics are based on citations. However, in contrast to the journal impact factor, which gives only the ranking of the scientific journals, ordered by impact factor, indexes in scientometrics are suitable for ranking of scientists, scientific journals and countries. In this paper the h-index, h5-index, the World ranking the top of 25 Highly Cited Researchers (h > 100) and the ranking of 25 scientists in Hungarian Institutions according to their Google Scholar Citations public profiles are considered. These indexes (h5-index) are applied for making of the list of top 20 publications (journals and proceedings) in the field of Robotics. The World ranking is done of the best 50 countries according to h-index in year 2014. Data are obtained from the portal Scimago

The stability of the h -index

Over the last years the h-index has gained popularity as a measure for comparing the impact of scientists. We investigate if ranking according to the h-index is stable with respect to (i) different choices of citation databases, (ii) normalizing citation counts by the number of authors or by removing self-citations, (iii) small amounts of noise created by randomly removing citations or publications and (iv) small changes in the definition of the index. In experiments for 5,283 computer scientists and 1,354 physicists we show that although the ranking of the h-index is stable under most of these changes, it is unstable when different databases are used. Therefore, comparisons based on the h-index should only be trusted when the rankings of multiple citation databases agre

Regularity in the research output of individual scientists: An empirical analysis by recent bibliometric tools

This paper proposes an empirical analysis of several scientists based on their time regularity, defined as the ability of generating an active and stable research output over time, in terms of both quantity/publications and impact/citations. In particular, we empirically analyse three recent bibliometric tools to perform qualitative/quantitative evaluations under the new perspective of regularity. These tools are respectively (1) the PY/CY diagram, (2) the publication/citation Ferrers diagram and triad indicators, and (3) a year-by-year comparison of the scientists' output (Borda's ranking). Results of the regularity analysis are then compared with those obtained under the classical perspective of overall production. The proposed evaluation tools can be applied to competitive examinations for research position/promotion, as complementary instruments to the commonly adopted bibliometric technique