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

Proposals for evaluating the regularity of a scientist'sresearch output

Evaluating the career of individual scientists according to their scientific output is a common bibliometric problem. Two aspects are classically taken into account: overall productivity and overall diffusion/impact, which can be measured by a plethora of indicators that consider publications and/or citations separately or synthesise these two quantities into a single number (e.g. h-index). A secondary aspect, which is sometimes mentioned in the rules of competitive examinations for research position/promotion, is time regularity of one researcher's scientific output. Despite the fact that it is sometimes invoked, a clear definition of regularity is still lacking. We define it as the ability of generating an active and stable research output over time, in terms of both publications/ quantity and citations/diffusion. The goal of this paper is introducing three analysis tools to perform qualitative/quantitative evaluations on the regularity of one scientist's output in a simple and organic way. These tools are respectively (1) the PY/CY diagram, (2) the publication/citation Ferrers diagram and (3) a simplified procedure for comparing the research output of several scientists according to their publication and citation temporal distributions (Borda's ranking). Description of these tools is supported by several examples

The e-Index, Complementing the h-Index for Excess Citations

BACKGROUND: The h-index has already been used by major citation databases to evaluate the academic performance of individual scientists. Although effective and simple, the h-index suffers from some drawbacks that limit its use in accurately and fairly comparing the scientific output of different researchers. These drawbacks include information loss and low resolution: the former refers to the fact that in addition to h(2) citations for papers in the h-core, excess citations are completely ignored, whereas the latter means that it is common for a group of researchers to have an identical h-index. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To solve these problems, I here propose the e-index, where e(2) represents the ignored excess citations, in addition to the h(2) citations for h-core papers. Citation information can be completely depicted by using the h-index together with the e-index, which are independent of each other. Some other h-type indices, such as a and R, are h-dependent, have information redundancy with h, and therefore, when used together with h, mask the real differences in excess citations of different researchers. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Although simple, the e-index is a necessary h-index complement, especially for evaluating highly cited scientists or for precisely comparing the scientific output of a group of scientists having an identical h-index

The Carbon_h-Factor: Predicting Individuals' Research Impact at Early Stages of Their Career

Assessing an individual's research impact on the basis of a transparent algorithm is an important task for evaluation and comparison purposes. Besides simple but also inaccurate indices such as counting the mere number of publications or the accumulation of overall citations, and highly complex but also overwhelming full-range publication lists in their raw format, Hirsch (2005) introduced a single figure cleverly combining different approaches. The so-called h-index has undoubtedly become the standard in scientometrics of individuals' research impact (note: in the present paper I will always use the term “research impact” to describe the research performance as the logic of the paper is based on the h-index, which quantifies the specific “impact” of, e.g., researchers, but also because the genuine meaning of impact refers to quality as well). As the h-index reflects the number h of papers a researcher has published with at least h citations, the index is inherently positively biased towards senior level researchers. This might sometimes be problematic when predictive tools are needed for assessing young scientists' potential, especially when recruiting early career positions or equipping young scientists' labs. To be compatible with the standard h-index, the proposed index integrates the scientist's research age (Carbon_h-factor) into the h-index, thus reporting the average gain of h-index per year. Comprehensive calculations of the Carbon_h-factor were made for a broad variety of four research-disciplines (economics, neuroscience, physics and psychology) and for researchers performing on three high levels of research impact (substantial, outstanding and epochal) with ten researchers per category. For all research areas and output levels we obtained linear developments of the h-index demonstrating the validity of predicting one's later impact in terms of research impact already at an early stage of their career with the Carbon_h-factor being approx. 0.4, 0.8, and 1.5 for substantial, outstanding and epochal researchers, respectively

Fifty-Year Fate and Impact of General Medical Journals

Background: Influential medical journals shape medical science and practice and their prestige is usually appraised by citation impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor. However, how permanent are medical journals and how stable is their impact over time? Methods and Results: We evaluated what happened to general medical journals that were publishing papers half a century ago, in 1959. Data were retrieved from ISI Web of Science for citations and PubMed (Journals function) for journal history. Of 27 eligible journals publishing in 1959, 4 have stopped circulation (including two of the most prestigious journals in 1959) and another 7 changed name between 1959 and 2009. Only 6 of these 27 journals have been published continuously with their initial name since they started circulation. The citation impact of papers published in 1959 gives a very different picture from the current journal impact factor; the correlation between the two is non-significant and very close to zero. Only 13 of the 5,223 papers published in 1959 received at least 5 citations in 2009. Conclusions: Journals are more permanent entities than single papers, but they are also subject to major change and their relative prominence can change markedly over time

Statistical regularities in the rank-citation profile of scientists

Recent science of science research shows that scientific impact measures for journals and individual articles have quantifiable regularities across both time and discipline. However, little is known about the scientific impact distribution at the scale of an individual scientist. We analyze the aggregate production and impact using the rank-citation profile ci(r) of 200 distinguished professors and 100 assistant professors. For the entire range of paper rank r, we fit each ci(r) to a common distribution function. Since two scientists with equivalent Hirsch h-index can have significantly different ci(r) profiles, our results demonstrate the utility of the βi scaling parameter in conjunction with hi for quantifying individual publication impact. We show that the total number of citations Ci tallied from a scientist's Ni papers scales as . Such statistical regularities in the input-output patterns of scientists can be used as benchmarks for theoretical models of career progress

Prepatterning in the Stem Cell Compartment

The mechanism by which an apparently uniform population of cells can generate a heterogeneous population of differentiated derivatives is a fundamental aspect of pluripotent and multipotent stem cell behaviour. One possibility is that the environment and the differentiation cues to which the cells are exposed are not uniform. An alternative, but not mutually exclusive possibility is that the observed heterogeneity arises from the stem cells themselves through the existence of different interconvertible substates that pre-exist before the cells commit to differentiate. We have tested this hypothesis in the case of apparently homogeneous pluripotent human embryonal carcinoma (EC) stem cells, which do not follow a uniform pattern of differentiation when exposed to retinoic acid. Instead, they produce differentiated progeny that include both neuronal and non-neural phenotypes. Our results suggest that pluripotent NTERA2 stem cells oscillate between functionally distinct substates that are primed to select distinct lineages when differentiation is induced