Part II

Should the h-index be modified? An analysis of the m-quotient, contemporary h-index, authorship value, and impact factor

Nickalus R. Khan, Clinton J. Thompson, Douglas R. Taylor, Kyle S. Gabrick, Asim Choudhri, Frederick Boop, Paul Klimo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective The widely accepted h-index depends on the citation analysis source and does not consider the authorship position, the journal's impact factor (IF), or the age of the paper or author. We investigated these factors in citation statistics of academic neurosurgeons. Methods An uncorrected h-index and the m-quotient, which corrects for career length, were calculated by the use of Scopus and Google Scholar. In a subset of neurosurgeons, we computed the contemporary h-index (hc), which accounts for the age of the publications; the authorship value (AV), weighted by author position; and the journal IF. An "overall' average for AV and IF including most of an author's publications and an average for publications comprising the h-index ("h-index core") were calculated. Results When we used Google Scholar, the mean h-index was significantly greater than that calculated when we used Scopus (P = 0.0030). m-quotient and hc-index increased with academic rank, with an m-quotient >1 achieved by 69% of chairmen and 48% of professors. The effect of AV was greatest on the greater h-indices. The average IF for the h-index core was greater than the overall IF, which did not correlate with academic rank. Few neurosurgeons consistently publish in high-impact journals. Conclusion Google Scholar tends to inflate the h-index. The m-quotient and hc-index allow comparisons of researchers across time. Although average journal IF did not differ significantly among neurosurgeons academic ranks, it should be noted for individuals who consistently publish in high-impact journals. We recommend the creation of individual bibliometric profiles to better compare the academic productivity of neurosurgeons.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)766-774
Number of pages9
JournalWorld Neurosurgery
Volume80
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2013

Fingerprint

Authorship
Journal Impact Factor
Publications
Bibliometrics
Research Personnel
Neurosurgeons

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Part II : Should the h-index be modified? An analysis of the m-quotient, contemporary h-index, authorship value, and impact factor. / Khan, Nickalus R.; Thompson, Clinton J.; Taylor, Douglas R.; Gabrick, Kyle S.; Choudhri, Asim; Boop, Frederick; Klimo, Paul.

In: World Neurosurgery, Vol. 80, No. 6, 01.12.2013, p. 766-774.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{883dd133fc4a41f098cc965ea1b7a27e,
title = "Part II: Should the h-index be modified? An analysis of the m-quotient, contemporary h-index, authorship value, and impact factor",
abstract = "Objective The widely accepted h-index depends on the citation analysis source and does not consider the authorship position, the journal's impact factor (IF), or the age of the paper or author. We investigated these factors in citation statistics of academic neurosurgeons. Methods An uncorrected h-index and the m-quotient, which corrects for career length, were calculated by the use of Scopus and Google Scholar. In a subset of neurosurgeons, we computed the contemporary h-index (hc), which accounts for the age of the publications; the authorship value (AV), weighted by author position; and the journal IF. An {"}overall' average for AV and IF including most of an author's publications and an average for publications comprising the h-index ({"}h-index core{"}) were calculated. Results When we used Google Scholar, the mean h-index was significantly greater than that calculated when we used Scopus (P = 0.0030). m-quotient and hc-index increased with academic rank, with an m-quotient >1 achieved by 69{\%} of chairmen and 48{\%} of professors. The effect of AV was greatest on the greater h-indices. The average IF for the h-index core was greater than the overall IF, which did not correlate with academic rank. Few neurosurgeons consistently publish in high-impact journals. Conclusion Google Scholar tends to inflate the h-index. The m-quotient and hc-index allow comparisons of researchers across time. Although average journal IF did not differ significantly among neurosurgeons academic ranks, it should be noted for individuals who consistently publish in high-impact journals. We recommend the creation of individual bibliometric profiles to better compare the academic productivity of neurosurgeons.",
author = "Khan, {Nickalus R.} and Thompson, {Clinton J.} and Taylor, {Douglas R.} and Gabrick, {Kyle S.} and Asim Choudhri and Frederick Boop and Paul Klimo",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.wneu.2013.07.011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "80",
pages = "766--774",
journal = "World Neurosurgery",
issn = "1878-8750",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Part II

T2 - Should the h-index be modified? An analysis of the m-quotient, contemporary h-index, authorship value, and impact factor

AU - Khan, Nickalus R.

AU - Thompson, Clinton J.

AU - Taylor, Douglas R.

AU - Gabrick, Kyle S.

AU - Choudhri, Asim

AU - Boop, Frederick

AU - Klimo, Paul

PY - 2013/12/1

Y1 - 2013/12/1

N2 - Objective The widely accepted h-index depends on the citation analysis source and does not consider the authorship position, the journal's impact factor (IF), or the age of the paper or author. We investigated these factors in citation statistics of academic neurosurgeons. Methods An uncorrected h-index and the m-quotient, which corrects for career length, were calculated by the use of Scopus and Google Scholar. In a subset of neurosurgeons, we computed the contemporary h-index (hc), which accounts for the age of the publications; the authorship value (AV), weighted by author position; and the journal IF. An "overall' average for AV and IF including most of an author's publications and an average for publications comprising the h-index ("h-index core") were calculated. Results When we used Google Scholar, the mean h-index was significantly greater than that calculated when we used Scopus (P = 0.0030). m-quotient and hc-index increased with academic rank, with an m-quotient >1 achieved by 69% of chairmen and 48% of professors. The effect of AV was greatest on the greater h-indices. The average IF for the h-index core was greater than the overall IF, which did not correlate with academic rank. Few neurosurgeons consistently publish in high-impact journals. Conclusion Google Scholar tends to inflate the h-index. The m-quotient and hc-index allow comparisons of researchers across time. Although average journal IF did not differ significantly among neurosurgeons academic ranks, it should be noted for individuals who consistently publish in high-impact journals. We recommend the creation of individual bibliometric profiles to better compare the academic productivity of neurosurgeons.

AB - Objective The widely accepted h-index depends on the citation analysis source and does not consider the authorship position, the journal's impact factor (IF), or the age of the paper or author. We investigated these factors in citation statistics of academic neurosurgeons. Methods An uncorrected h-index and the m-quotient, which corrects for career length, were calculated by the use of Scopus and Google Scholar. In a subset of neurosurgeons, we computed the contemporary h-index (hc), which accounts for the age of the publications; the authorship value (AV), weighted by author position; and the journal IF. An "overall' average for AV and IF including most of an author's publications and an average for publications comprising the h-index ("h-index core") were calculated. Results When we used Google Scholar, the mean h-index was significantly greater than that calculated when we used Scopus (P = 0.0030). m-quotient and hc-index increased with academic rank, with an m-quotient >1 achieved by 69% of chairmen and 48% of professors. The effect of AV was greatest on the greater h-indices. The average IF for the h-index core was greater than the overall IF, which did not correlate with academic rank. Few neurosurgeons consistently publish in high-impact journals. Conclusion Google Scholar tends to inflate the h-index. The m-quotient and hc-index allow comparisons of researchers across time. Although average journal IF did not differ significantly among neurosurgeons academic ranks, it should be noted for individuals who consistently publish in high-impact journals. We recommend the creation of individual bibliometric profiles to better compare the academic productivity of neurosurgeons.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84889676820&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84889676820&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.07.011

DO - 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.07.011

M3 - Article

VL - 80

SP - 766

EP - 774

JO - World Neurosurgery

JF - World Neurosurgery

SN - 1878-8750

IS - 6

ER -