On the use of the h-index in evaluating chemical research

Chemistry Central Journal

Rosaria Ciriminna¹  Mario Pagliaro¹ 

[1] Istituto per lo Studio dei Materiali Nanostrutturati, CNR, via U. La Malfa 153, 90146 Palermo, Italy

关键词: H index chemists;    Chemical research;    H index;    Impact factor;    Bibliometrics;   

Others  :  787861
DOI  :  10.1186/1752-153X-7-132

 received in 2013-06-03, accepted in 2013-07-23,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The h index bibliometric indicator for evaluating scientists and scientific institutions plays an increasingly important role in evaluating contemporary scientific research, including chemistry.

Results

Citations are meaningful. The best way of measuring performance is to use the informed peer review, where peers judge on the base of a bibliometric report, once the limits and advantages of bibliometric indicators have been thoroughly understood.

Conclusions

Expanded and improved use of bibliometric indicators such as the h index in a useful and wise manner is suggested.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Ciriminna and Pagliaro; licensee Chemistry Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Dewitt TW, Nicholson RS, Wilson MK: Science citation index and chemistry. Scientometrics 1980, 2:265-275.
• [2]Hirsch JE: An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005, 102:16569-16572.
• [3]Bornmann L, Marx W: The h index as a research performance indicator. Eur Sci Ed 2011, 37(3):77-80.
• [4]Bornmann L, Daniel H-D: What do we know about the h index? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2007, 58:1381-1385.
• [5]Danell R: Can the quality of scientific work be predicted using information on the author’s track record? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2011, 62:50-60.
• [6]Zare RN: Assessing academic researchers. Angew Chem Int Ed 2012, 51:7338-7339.
• [7]Thomson Reuters: Essential Science Indicators. http://thomsonreuters.com/essential-science-indicators/ webcite
• [8]Garfield E: Citation indexes for science. Science 1955, 122:108-111.
• [9]Garfield E: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. J Am Med Assoc 2006, 295:90-93.
• [10]Campbell P: Escape from the impact factor. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 2008, 8:5-7.
• [11]The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. A petition initiated by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). 2012. http://am.ascb.org/dora webcite
• [12]Borgman CL: Scholarship in the Digital Age. Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2007.
• [13]Petsko GA: Having an impact (factor). Genome Biol 2008, 9:107. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]PloS Biology. http://www.plosbiology.org/static/information.action webcite
• [15]Zhang C-T: The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS One 2009, 4(5):e5429.
• [16]Bornmann L, Schier H, Marx W, Daniel H-D: Does the h index for assessing single publications really work? A case study on papers published in chemistry. Scientometrics 2011, 89:835-843.
• [17]Kreiman G, Maunsell JHR: Nine criteria for a measure of scientific output. Front Comput Neurosci 2011, 5:48.
• [18]Bornmann L, Mutz R, Marx W, Schier H, Daniel H-D: A multilevel modelling approach to investigating the predictive validity of editorial decisions: Do the editors of a high-profile journal select manuscripts that are highly cited after publication? J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2011, 174:857-879.
• [19]Directory of Open Access Journals. http://www.doaj.org/doaj?cpid=60&func=subject webcite
• [20]Kuras J, Kahn D, Vickery B: Open access in chemistry: Information wants to be free?. Internet and Chemistry session, 241st ACS National Meeting & Exposition Anaheim, California 30 March 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/ChemistryCentral/open-access-in-chemistry-from-acs-spring-meeting-2011 webcite
• [21]Snyder J: Google Scholar vs. Scopus & Web of Science. 2012. http://www.functionalneurogenesis.com/blog/2012/02/google-scholar-vs-scopus-web-of-science webcite
• [22]Bornmann L, Marx W, Schier H, Rahm E, Thor A, Daniel H-D: Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry - citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. J Informetr 2009, 3:27-35.
• [23]Harzing A-W: A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: a longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Scientometrics 2013, 94:1057-1075.
• [24]Harzing A-W: Publish or Perish. http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm webcite
• [25]Wikipedia: Google Scholar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Scholar#Limitations_and_criticism webcite
• [26]Feyerabend P: Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books; 1975.
• [27]Pagliaro M: “Of sea urchins, volcanoes, earthquakes … and engagement”: Marcello Carapezza, Alberto Monroy, and Italy's University System. Scie Context 2007, 20:679-691.
• [28]Degli Esposti M: Abilitazione nazionale: how to become a university professor in Italy now. TIS Report 021 . 2013. http://www.tisreports.com/abilitazione_nazionale_how_to_become_a_university_professor_in_Italy_now.aspx?ProductID=21 webcite
• [29]Bornmann L, Marx W: Proposals of standards for the application of scientometrics in the evaluation of individual researchers working in the natural sciences. Z Eval 2013, 12:103-127.
• [30]Waltman L, Calero-Medina C, Kosten J, Noyons ECM, Tijssen RJW, van Eck NJ, van Leeuwen TN, van Raan AFJ, Visser MS, Wouters P: The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: data collection, indicators, and interpretation. 2012. http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3941 webcite