A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants

被引:247
作者
Bornmann, Lutz [1 ]
Mutz, Ruediger [2 ]
Hug, Sven E. [2 ]
Daniel, Hans-Dieter [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Max Planck Gesell, D-80539 Munich, Germany
[2] ETH, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
[3] Univ Zurich, Evaluat Off, CH-8001 Zurich, Switzerland
关键词
h index; h index variants; Meta-analysis; Multilevel analysis; HIRSCH-TYPE INDEXES; RANDOM-EFFECTS MODELS; IMPACT; METHODOLOGY; RESEARCHERS; SCIENTISTS; INDICATORS; SCIENCES; FIELDS;
D O I
10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.006
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
This paper presents the first meta-analysis of studies that computed correlations between the h index and variants of the h index (such as the g index; in total 37 different variants) that have been proposed and discussed in the literature. A high correlation between the h index and its variants would indicate that the h index variants hardly provide added information to the h index. This meta-analysis included 135 correlation coefficients from 32 studies. The studies were based on a total sample size of N = 9005; on average, each study had a sample size of n = 257. The results of a three-level cross-classified mixed-effects meta-analysis show a high correlation between the h index and its variants: Depending on the model, the mean correlation coefficient varies between 8 and 9. This means that there is redundancy between most of the h index variants and the h index. There is a statistically significant study-to-study variation of the correlation coefficients in the information they yield. The lowest correlation coefficients with the h index are found for the h index variants MII and m index. Hence, these h index variants make a non-redundant contribution to the h index. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:346 / 359
页数:14
相关论文
共 99 条
[61]   Assessment of research performance in biology: How well do peer review and bibliometry correlate? [J].
Lovegrove, Barry G. ;
Johnson, Steven D. .
BIOSCIENCE, 2008, 58 (02) :160-164
[62]   Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches [J].
Marsh, Herbert W. ;
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Mutz, Ruediger ;
Daniel, Hans-Dieter ;
O'Mara, Alison .
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 2009, 79 (03) :1290-1326
[63]  
MARUSIC A, 2005, EUROPEAN SCI EDITING, V31, P112
[64]   What meta-analyses have and have not taught us about psychotherapy effects: A review and future directions [J].
Matt, GE ;
Navarro, AM .
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 1997, 17 (01) :1-32
[66]   A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions [J].
Molinari, Jean-Francois ;
Molinari, Alain .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2008, 75 (01) :163-174
[67]   Ranking marketing journals using the Google Scholar-based hg-index [J].
Moussa, Salim ;
Touzani, Mourad .
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2010, 4 (01) :107-117
[68]   The h-index: a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator [J].
Norris, Michael ;
Oppenheim, Charles .
JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION, 2010, 66 (05) :681-705
[69]   The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists The case of Dutch professors in clinical cardiology [J].
Opthof, T. ;
Wilde, A. A. M. .
NETHERLANDS HEART JOURNAL, 2009, 17 (04) :145-154
[70]   A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects [J].
Overton, RC .
PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 1998, 3 (03) :354-379