Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Assessment of author ranking indices based on multi-authorship

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Various multi-authorship indices have been proposed in the literature, however, there is a continuous discussion in the scientific community which multi-authorship index performs better for the ranking of authors. So far, multi-authorship indices are assessed on very small datasets mostly single authors or the publication record of less than 10 authors. Furthermore, the indices are evaluated on different datasets, making it difficult to assess the true contribution and importance of each multi-authorship index over the others. To identify the individual performance of each multi-authorship index, we employ a comprehensive dataset of Civil Engineering domain, rank the authors according to each index and calculate the correlation between the ranked lists obtained by these indices. It is found that the correlation values vary between very strong correlation and very weak correlation and the negative correlation also exists between some of the indices. Secondly, to evaluate the ranking, the occurrence of award winners is found in the author ranked lists of these indices. The award winners of four most renowned societies of Civil Engineering were considered as benchmark. In top 10% of the ranked list, gf-index remained successful in bringing most of the awardees i.e. around 67% of total awardees. Overall, none of the multi-authorship index remained successful in bringing 100% of award winners in the list of top ranked authors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguillo, I. F. (2011). Is google scholar useful for bibliometrics? a webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ain, Q., Riaz, H., & Afzal, M. T. (2019). Evaluation of h-index and its citation intensity based variants in the field of mathematics. Scientometrics, 119, 187–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anania, G., & Caruso, A. (2013). Two simple new bibliometric indexes to better evaluate research in disciplines where publications typically receive less citations. Scientometrics, 96(2), 617–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonis Sidiropoulos, D. K., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2007). Generalized hirsch hindex for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72(2), 253–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandeep B. Bavdekar, (2012). Authorship issues. Lung India, 29, 632–634.

  • Bela Gipp, E. W., Joeran Beel (2009). “Academic search engine optimization (aseo): Optimizing scholarly literature for google scholar co. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41 (2), 176–190.

  • Christopher, D. C. C., Carpenter, R., & Sarli, C. C. (2014). Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impact. Academic Emergency Medicine, 21(10), 1160–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corder, G. W. (2009). Comparing variables of ordinal or dichotomous scales: Spearman rank-order, point-biserial, and biserial correlations, p. 122154.

  • Corbyn, Z. (2010). An easy way to boost a papers citations. Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/news.2010.406, 2010.

  • Daniela Rosenstreich, B. W. (2009). Measuring the impact of accounting journals using google scholar and the g-index. The British Accounting Review, 41(4), 227239.

  • David C. Cone, Lowell W. Gerson (2012). Measuring the measurable: a commentary on impact factor. AcadEmerg Medicine, 19, 12971299.

  • De Winter J., Zadpoor A. A., Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of google scholar versus web of science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98 (2), 15471565.

  • Egghe, L. (2008). Mathematical theory of the h-and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10), 1608–1616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, B. (1964). Rogers, “The development of medlars.” Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 52, 150–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fye W.B. (1990). Medical authorship: traditions, trends, and tribulations. Annals of Internal Medicine, 113, p. 317–325.

  • Falagas, M. E., & Pitsouni, E. I. (2008). Comparison of pubmed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22 (2), 338342.

  • Ghani, R., Qayyum, F., Afzal, M. T., et al. (2019). Comprehensive evaluation of h-index and its extensions in the domain of mathematics. Scientometrics, 118, 809–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W. (2014). A longitudinal study of google scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98(1), 565575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. (2005). Google scholar: A source for clinicians? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 172(12), 1549–1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henk, G. H., Moed, F., Judit Bar-Ilan (2016). A new methodology for comparing google scholar and scopus.Journal of Informetrics, 10 (2), 533551.

  • 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.

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2019). h(alpha): An index to quantify an individual’s scientific leadership. Scientometrics, 118, 673–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hongbo Deng, M. L. I. K., Jiawei Han (2012). “Modeling and exploiting heterogeneous bibliographic networks for expertise ranking. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 71–80, 2012.

  • Jacso, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h-index using google scholar. Online Information Review, 32(3), 437–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin Bi Hui, R. R., Liang Li Ming & L. Egghe (2007). The r- and ar-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52 (6), 855–863.

  • Jin (2007). Ar-index: Complementing the h index. ISSI Newsletter, 3 (1), 6.

  • Kosmulski, M. (2006). A new hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, 2(3), 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lech Czarnecki, A. R., & Kazmierkowski, M. P. (2013). Doing hirsch proud; shaping h-index in engineering sciences. Bulletin of the Polis Academy of Sciences Technical Sciences, 61(1).

  • Lokman I. Meho. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of lis faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58 (13), 21052125.

  • Lutz Bornmann, R. M. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5 (3), 346359.

  • Madiha Ameer, M. T. A. (2019). Evaluation of h‑index and its qualitative and quantitative variants in Neuroscience. Scientometrics, 121, 653–673.

  • Noruzi, A. (2005). Google scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. Libri, 55(4), 170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pablo, O. K., Batista, D., Mnica G. Campiteli & Martinez, A. S. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?. Scientometrics, 68 (1), 179–189.

  • Raheel, T. A. M., & Ayaz, S. (2018). Evaluation of h-index, its variants and extensions based on publication age and citation intensity in civil engineering. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1107–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard K. Belew. (2005). Scientific impact quantity and quality: Analysis of two sources of bibliographic data. 2005.

  • Samreen Ayaz, M. T. A. (2016). Identification of conversion factor for completingh index for the field of mathematics. Scientometrics, 109 (3), 1511–1524.

  • Schoonbaert, D., & Roelants, G. (1996). Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: Quality assessment tool or comedy of errors? Blackwell Science Ltd, 1(6), 739–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2009a). A modification of the h-index: The hm -index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2145–2150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2009b). Fractionalized counting of publications for the g-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2145–2150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314, 498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sergio Alonso, E. H.-V.., Francisco Javier Cabrerizo, & Herrera, F. (2009). “hgindex: A new index to characterize the scientic output of researchers based on the h- and g- indices. Scientometrics, 82(2), 391–400.

  • Tehmina Amjad, M. A. S. N. N., & Ishfaq Ahmad. (2016). Variation in citation based fractional counting of authorship. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 35 (2), 2518–4571.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLOS Biology, 5(1), e18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vavrycuk, V. (2018). Fair ranking of researchers and research teams', PLOS One, 13(4), e0195509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Informetrics, 10, 365–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Informetrics, 872–894.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Muhammad Salman & Mohammad Masroor Ahmed

  2. Namal Institute Mianwali, Punjab, Pakistan

    Muhammad Tanvir Afzal

Authors
  1. Muhammad Salman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Masroor Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muhammad Tanvir Afzal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Tanvir Afzal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salman, M., Ahmed, M.M. & Afzal, M.T. Assessment of author ranking indices based on multi-authorship. Scientometrics 126, 4153–4172 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03906-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03906-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation