Abstract
A publications quality indicator called high-ranked citations percentage (HCP) is based on an idea that good papers are well cited. HCP was computed as a portion of cumulative citations concerning well cited papers from the total number of citations of an individual. The h-index was used to separate the well cited papers from the others. A testing dataset was composed of researchers who worked in various fields and at various institutions. Their research outputs were characterized by the h-index (h), the number of papers (P), the number of citations (C) and self-citations taken from the Web of Science (WoS). Unlike the h-index, HCP as a relative indicator does not underestimate researchers with shorter or interrupted research careers and does not depend on research fields. The scatter plot of HCP and the h index was employed for ranking of individuals into 4 groups according to its quadrants. The best performing authors had HCP above 70% and h above 15.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Abdi, H., & Williams, L. J. (2010). Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(4), 433–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101.
Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2013). Individual research performance: A proposal for comparing apples to oranges. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 528–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.013.
Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics, 101(2), 1129–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8.
Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001.
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H.-D. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.006.
Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001.
Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1997-0.
Da Luz, M. P., Marques-Portella, C., Mendlowicz, M., Gleiser, S., Silva Freire Coutinho, E., & Figueira, I. (2008). Institutional h-index: The performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian Psychiatric Post-graduation Programs. Scientometrics, 77(2), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1964-9.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7.
Fiala, J., Mareš, J. J., & Šesták, J. (2017). Reflections on how to evaluate the professional value of scientific papers and their corresponding citations. Scientometrics, 112(1), 697–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2334-x.
Hemmingsson, A., Mygind, T., Skjennald, A., & Edgren, J. (2002). Manipulation of impact factors by editors of scientific journals. American Journal of Roentgenology, 178(3), 767–767. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.178.3.1780767.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
Hubert, M., & Debruyne, M. (2009). Minimum covariance determinant. Computational Statistics, 2(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.61.
Hubert, M., Rousseeuw, P. J., & Vanden Branden, K. (2005). ROBPCA: A new approach to robust principal component analysis. Technometrics, 47(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1198/004017004000000563.
Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharromán, C. (2007). Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1805-x.
Kampourakis, K. (2017). Conference issues versus conference proceedings. Science & Education, 26(5), 449–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9922-2.
Lazaridis, T. (2010). Ranking university departments using the mean h-index. Scientometrics, 82(2), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0048-4.
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002.
Nagpaul, P. S., & Roy, S. (2003). Constructing a multi-objective measure of research performance. Scientometrics, 56(3), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022382904996.
Praus, P. (2018). Statistical evaluation of research performance of young university scholars: A case study. Transinformação, 30, 167–177.
Ronda-Pupo, G. A. (2017). Research evaluation of author’s citation-based performance through the relative author superiority index. Transinformação, 29(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892017000200006.
Rousseeuw, P. J., & Driessen, K. V. (1999). A fast algorithm for the minimum covariance determinant estimator. Technometrics, 41(3), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1999.10485670.
Schreiber, M. (2010). Twenty Hirsch index variants and other indicators giving more or less preference to highly cited papers. Annalen der Physik, 522(8), 536–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.201000046.
Schreiber, M., Malesios, C. C., & Psarakis, S. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis for the Hirsch index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.02.001.
Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2007). A systematic analysis of Hirsch-type indices for journals. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.002.
Silagadze, Z. K. (2010). Citation entropy and research impact estimation. Acta Physica Polonica B, 41(11), 9.
Verboven, S., & Hubert, M. (2005). LIBRA: A MATLAB library for robust analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 75(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2004.06.003.
Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2010). Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.06.002.
Vinkler, P. (2010). The π v-index: A new indicator to characterize the impact of journals. Scientometrics, 82(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0182-z.
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.001.
Wold, S., Esbensen, K., & Geladi, P. (1987). Principal component analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 2(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7439(87)80084-9.
Yu, G., Yang, D.-H., & Liang, W. (2009). Reliability-based citation impact factor and the manipulation of impact factor. Scientometrics, 83(1), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0083-1.
Zhou, J., Zeng, A., Fan, Y., & Di, Z. (2018). The representative works of scientists. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1721–1732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2918-0.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Dr. Zdeněk Matěj (Lund University, Sweden) for his help with the programming in MATLAB.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Praus, P. High-ranked citations percentage as an indicator of publications quality. Scientometrics 120, 319–329 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03128-6
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03128-6