바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • P-ISSN1013-0799
  • E-ISSN2586-2073
  • KCI

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 / Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2010, v.27 no.1, pp.249-267
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2010.27.1.249



Abstract

The h-index is a new tool for measuring research outputs based on citation and many variants of h-index have been proposed to improve the weaknesses of h-index. The h-index and its variants can be applied to institutional evaluation in three different ways. We worked out 447 practical cases of professors from 10 business schools and examined h-index and its variants. And then we compared three evaluation methods of research institution based on the h-index and its variants.

keywords
h-index, mean h-index, meta h-index, research output, institutional evaluation, 기관평가, h-지수, h 변형지수, 연구성과, 평균 h-지수, 메타 h-지수

Reference

1.

이재윤. (2006). 연구성과 측정을 위한 h-지수의 개량에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 23(3), 167-186.

2.

Arencibia-Jorge, R.. (2008). Applying successive H indices in the institutional evaluation: A case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 155-157.

3.

Arencibia-Jorge, R.. (2009). Influence of individual researcher's visibility on institutional impact: an example of Prathap's approach to successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 79(3), 507-516.

4.

Batista, P.D.. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research valid across discipline. Scientometrics, 68(1), 179-189.

5.

Bornmann, L.. (2007). What do we know about the h index?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381-1385.

6.

Bornmann, L.. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A Comparison of nine variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830-837.

7.

Bornmann, L.. (2009). Do we need the h-index and its variants in addition to standard bibliometric measures?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1286-1289.

8.

Braun, T.. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169-173.

9.

Cronin, B.. (2006). Using the h-index to rank influential information scientist. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1275-1278.

10.

Egghe, L.. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. IISI Newsletter, 2(1), 8-9.

11.

Grant, J.. (2007). Academic Institutions in the US and Canada ranked according to research productivity in the field of Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology, 21, 1139-1144.

12.

Hirsch, J. E.. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (16569-16572). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

13.

Jin, B.. (2006). h-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus, 1(1), 8-9.

14.

Quoted in Rousseau, R.. (2006). New developments related to the Hirsch index. http://eprints.rclis.org/6376.

15.

Jin, B.. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855-863.

16.

Kosmulski, M.. (2006). A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(3), 4-6.

17.

Lazaridis, T.. (2010). Ranking university departments using the mean h-index. Scientometrics, 82(2), 211-216.

18.

Lehmann. S., A. D. Jackson, and B. Lautrup. (2006). Measures and mismeasures of scientific quality. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512238.

19.

Luz, M.. (2008). Institutional h-index: The performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian Psychiatric Postgraduation Programs. Scientometrics, 77(2), 361-368.

20.

Molinari, A.. (2008). Mathematical aspects of new criterion for ranking scientific institutions based on the h-index. Scientometrics, 75(2), 339-356.

21.

Oppenheim, C.. (2007). Using the h-index to rank influential British Researchers in information science and librarianship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 297-301.

22.

Prathap, G.. (2006). Hirsch-type indices for ranking institutions' scientific research output. Current Science, 91(11), 1439-.

23.

Ravichandra Rao, I.K.. (2007). Distributions of Hirsch-index and G-index: An empirical study (655-658). Proceedings of the 11th conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics. Spanish Research Council.

24.

Quoted in Bornmann, L.. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A Comparison of nine variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830-837.

25.

Ruane, F.. (2008). Rational(succes sive) h-indices: an application to economics in the republic of Ireland. Scientometrics, 75(2), 395-405.

26.

Schubert, A.. (2007). Successive h-indices. Scientometrics, 70(1), 201-205.

27.

Schreiber, M.. (2008). An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1513-1522.

28.

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.

29.

Tol, Richard S. J.. (2009). The h-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists. Scientometrics, 80(2), 317-324.

Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management