Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Calculating the h-index and Its Variants Considering the Number of Authors in a Paper

공저자 수를 고려한 h-지수 산출

  • 이재윤 (명지대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2016.05.31
  • Accepted : 2016.09.11
  • Published : 2016.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for evaluating individual researchers. However, it has been criticized for its inconsistency with reflecting increased number of citations and disregarding the number of co-authors in a paper. In order to overcome these problems, we examined the g-index and other Hirsch-type indices considering the number of co-authors. Test data collection was extracted from Korean Citation Index database published from 2004 to 2013. The results of this study are as follows: First, g-index is more reliable indicator than h-index with consistency. Second, number of co-authors must be considered to maintain the h-index as an complex indicator applying the quality and the quantity of research performance. Finally, hc-index and gc-index, with fractionalised counting of the papers, can fairly measure the research performance of humanities researchers, and successfully prevent specific disciplines or institutions occupying majority of top rankings.

연구자 성과 평가를 위해 널리 사용되는 h-지수는 일관성 부족 문제와 공저자 수를 고려하지 않는다는 문제를 가지고 있다. 이를 극복하기 위해 h-지수와 g-지수, 그리고 공저 보정 방안을 검토하고 2004년부터 2013년 사이의 실제 KCI 데이터를 대상으로 분석해본 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 일관성 결여 문제를 해소하기 위해서는 g-지수를 사용하는 것이 더 바람직하다고 판단된다. 둘째, 연구 성과의 양적인 측면과 질적인 측면을 한꺼번에 반영하는 복합 지수라는 h-지수와 g-지수의 고유한 특성을 유지하기 위해서는 반드시 공저를 보정하여 지수를 측정해야 한다. 셋째, 공저자 수로 나눈 인용빈도를 사용하는 $h_C$-지수와 $g_C$-지수를 적용하면 단독 저술 비중이 높은 인문학 분야 연구자도 공정하게 평가할 수 있고, 특정 분야나 특정 기관에 속한 연구자가 상위 순위를 과점하는 현상을 방지할 수 있다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 한국연구재단

References

  1. 고영만, 조수련, 박지영 (2013). 학술지의 피인용횟수 순위를 적용한 tapered h-지수의 변형지표 "Kor-hT"에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 30(4), 111-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.111 (Ko, Young Man, Cho, Soo-Ryun, & Park, Ji Young (2013). A study on the "Kor-T", a modified tapered h-index, by applying the ranking according to the number of citations of journals in evaluating Korean journals. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(4), 111-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.111)
  2. 김판준, 이재윤 (2010). 학술지 영향력 측정을 위한 h-지수의 응용에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 27(1), 269-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.1.269 (Kim, Pan-Jun, & Lee, Jae Yun (2010). A study on journal impact measurement with Hirsch-type indices. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 27(1), 269-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.1.269)
  3. 박지연, 김정은, 민윤경 (2010). 기관단위 연구성과 평가방법에 관한 연구: h-지수 및 변형지수를 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 27(1), 249-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.1.249 (Park, Ji-Yeon, Kim, Jung-Eun, & Min, Yoon-Kyung (2010). A study on the evaluation methods of research institution: Based on the h-index and its variants. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 27(1), 249-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.1.249)
  4. 유소영, 이재윤 (2008). 학제적 분야의 정보서비스를 위한 학술지 인용 분석에 관한 연구: Y대학교 생명공학과를 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 25(4), 283-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2008.25.4.283 (Yu, So Young, & Lee, Jae Yun (2008). Journal citation analysis for library services on interdisciplinary domains: A case study of Department of Biotechnology, Y University. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 25(4), 283-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2008.25.4.283)
  5. 이재윤 (2006). 연구성과 평가를 위한 h-지수의 개량에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 23(3), 167-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.3.167 (Lee, Jae Yun (2006). Some improvements on h-index: Measuring research outputs by citations. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 23(3), 167-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.3.167)
  6. 이재윤, 최상희 (2015). 논문 인용 영향력 측정 지수의 편향성에 대한 연구: KCI 수록 논문을 대상으로. 정보관리학회지, 32(4), 205-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.205 (Lee, Jae Yun, & Choi, Sanghee (2015). Discipline bias of document citation impact indicators: Analyzing articles in Korean Citation Index. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 32(4), 205-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.205)
  7. 이종욱, 양기덕 (2011). 교수연구업적 평가법의 계량적 분석: 국내 문헌정보학과 교수연구업적을 중심으로. 정보관리학회지, 28(4), 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.119 (Lee, Jongwook, & Yang, Kiduk (2011). A bibliometric analysis of faculty research performance assessment methods. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(4), 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.119)
  8. Banks, M. G. (2006). An extension of the Hirsch Index: Indexing scientific topics and compounds. Scientometrics, 69(1), 161-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0146-5.
  9. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). The h-index of h-index and of other informetric topics. Scientometrics, 75(3), 591-605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1880-z.
  10. Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., & Martinez, A. S. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68(1), 179-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4
  11. Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2005). A Hirsch-type index for journals. The Scientist, 19(22), 8.
  12. Chai, J. C., Hua, P. H., Rousseau, R., & Wan, J. K. (2008). The adapted pure h-index. In: H. Kretschmer and F. Havemann (eds), Proceedings of WIS 2008, Berlin. Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics and Ninth COLLNET Meeting. Retrieved from http://www.collnet.de/Berlin-2008/ChaiWIS2008aph.pdf
  13. Cronin, B., & Meho, L. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275-1278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20354
  14. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7
  15. Egghe, L. (2007). Mathematical theory of the h-index and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1608-1616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20845
  16. Hagen, N. T. (2008). Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE, 3(12), e4021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004021.
  17. Harzing, A.-W. (2010). The publish or perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Melbourne, Australia: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd.
  18. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569-16572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
  19. Hu, X. J., Rousseau. R., & Chen, J. (2010). In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 73-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551509348133
  20. Kelly, C. D., & Jennions, M. D. (2006). The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(4), 167-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.005
  21. Lee, J. Y., & Chung, E. (2014). A comparative analysis on multiple authorship counting for author co-citation analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 31(2), 57-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.2.057
  22. Lee, J. Y., & Choi, S. (2011). Intellectual structure and infrastructure of informetrics. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(2), 11-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.2.011
  23. Rousseau, R. (2006). A case study: Evolution of JASIS' Hirsch index. Science Focus, 1(1), 16-17.
  24. Schreiber, M. (2008a). To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 10, p.040201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/040201
  25. Schreiber, M. (2008b). A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 211-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001
  26. Schreiber, M. (2010). Revisiting the g-index: The average number of citations in the g-core. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 169-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21218
  27. Schubert, A. (2009). Using the h-index for assessing single publications. Scientometrics, 78(3), 559-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2208-3
  28. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2006). Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics, 67(3), 491-502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/Scient.67.2006.3.10
  29. Vanclay, J. (2007). On the robustness of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1547-1550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20616
  30. Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21678
  31. Wan, J.-K., Hua, P.-h., & Rousseau, R. (2007). The pure h-index: Calculating an author's h-index by taking co-authors into account. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 1(2), 1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2007.10700824
  32. Zhang, C. T. (2009). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 416-417. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2009.74