4.5 Article

Comparison of the h index with standard bibliometric indicators to rank influential otolaryngologists in Europe and North America

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 267, 期 3, 页码 455-458

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-009-1009-5

关键词

Hirsch index; Bibliometric indicators; Otolaryngology; Web of Knowledge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Hirsch (h) index is an original and simple new bibliometric measure incorporating both quantity and quality. In this study, our aim was first to present characteristics of the statistical correlation between the h index and several standard bibliometric indicators and secondly we compared the h index between otolaryngologists from Europe and US. We used the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge to identify citation reports from a random sample of influential editors from six otolaryngology journals: Journal of Laryngology and Otology (n = 21), Clinical Otolaryngology (n = 16), European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology (n = 49), The Laryngoscope (n = 66), Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (n = 15), and Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (n = 15). The following data were gathered: Number of publications (P), total citations received by P(C), total citations received by P without self-citations (Cs), average number of citations per publication (CPP), and Hirsch index (h). Statistical analysis was used to correlate the above data and we also compared the h index of European and North American editors. There were 182 randomly selected editors. We observed a good correlation between the h index and other standard bibliometric indicators. Using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test, the median P between Europe and US was not statistically significant. However, the median C, CS and h were statistically significant. In conclusion, the h index is a simple yet powerful indicator as it combines productivity and impact. Overall, the US editorial panel have a higher h index.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据