Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Modified h-Index of Scopus: A New Way in Fair Scientometrics

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

The h-index of Scopus is used as an important and practical instrument in analyzing the scientific level of researchers. In this research, 6 effective items (including author’s order, quality of publication source, quality of citation source, type of citation, research scopes of the authors and the regular scope of citation source) were considered in order to increase the accuracy and equity of research and also the optimization of scientometrics. In order to find the actual impact of each item, a relation with a default coefficient was considered, and all effective items were presented after evaluating the influence of them on the desired coefficients. Here, the introduced effective factors were separately investigated for 20 Iranian authors who are randomly selected. The analysis of the results showed that by applying the effective factors, the h-index of authors was obtained on the basis of real and scientific criteria; thus, the mean of all effective factors is introduced as modified h-index. Among considered authors, the lowest reduction in h-index was 10.67% and the highest reduction was 37.25% (SD was 6.5). This reduction was obtained in comparison with their h-index of Scopus, and it demonstrates that the authors, who have less reduction in their h-index value, have more scientific and honest approach to research.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(46):16569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J Inform. 2009;3(4):273–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. What do we know about the h index? J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58(9):1381–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Braun T, Glänzel W, Schubert A. A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics. 2006;69(1):169–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Husian S, Muzamil M. Scientometric study of Indian central universities: a picture from Scopus. J Indian Libr Assoc. 2011;47(3–4):5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jacsó P. The h-index, h-core citation rate and the bibliometric profile of the Scopus database. Online Inf Rev. 2011;35(3):492–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L, Walch-Solimena C, Ettl C. Mapping excellence in the geography of science: an approach based on Scopus data. J Inform. 2011;5(4):537–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Burnham JF. Scopus database: a review. Biomed Dig Libr. 2006;3(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Torres-Salinas D, Lopez-Cózar E, Jiménez-Contreras E. Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus. Scientometrics. 2009;80(3):761–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ra A. The 15th Razi research festival on medical sciences. J Arthropod Borne Diseases. 2008;2(2):1.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tyrrell PN, Moody AR, Moody JOC, Ghiam N. Departmental h-index: evidence for publishing less? Can Assoc Radiol J. 2017;68(1):10–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gaster N, Gaster M. A critical assessment of the h-index. BioEssays. 2012;34(10):830–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Khan NR, Thompson CJ, Taylor DR, Gabrick KS, Choudhri AF, Boop FR, Klimo P. Part II: should the h-index be modified? An analysis of the m-quotient, contemporary h-index, authorship value, and impact factor. World Neurosurg. 2013;80(6):766–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lacasse JR, Hodge DR, Bean KF. Evaluating the productivity of social work scholars using the h-index. Res Soc Work Pract. 2011;21(5):599–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bertoli-Barsotti L, Lando T. The h-index as an almost-exact function of some basic statistics. Scientometrics. 2017;113:1209–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gray R, Hassanein E, Thompson DR. Journal editors and their h-index. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(9):2031–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Asnafi S, Gunderson T, McDonald RJ, Kallmes DF. Association of H-index of editorial board members and impact factor among radiology journals. Acad Radiol. 2017;24(2):119–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bartneck C, Kokkelmans S. Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics. 2010;87(1):85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics. 2006;69(1):131–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang C-T. The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(5):e5429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kay J, Memon M, de Sa D, Simunovic N, Duong A, Karlsson J, Ayeni OR. The h-index of editorial board members correlates positively with the impact factor of sports medicine journals. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967117694024.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Barnes C. The h-index debate: an introduction for librarians. J Acad Librariansh. 2017;43(6):487–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the Scopus editors for providing essential research data.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Research and Development, Lexis Publisher, Nikdel Alley, No.7.Unit 1, Shakouri Garakani Street, Niknam BLVD, Piroozi Street, Tehran, 1763964995, Iran

    Masoud Negahdary, Mahnaz Jafarzadeh, Ghasem Rahimi, Mahdia Naziri & Aliasghar Negahdary

  2. Yazd Cardiovascular Research Center, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

    Masoud Negahdary

  3. Nanomedicine and Nanobiology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Masoud Negahdary

  4. Young Researchers and Elite Club, Marvdasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran

    Masoud Negahdary, Ghasem Rahimi & Aliasghar Negahdary

Authors
  1. Masoud Negahdary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahnaz Jafarzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ghasem Rahimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mahdia Naziri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aliasghar Negahdary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masoud Negahdary.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Negahdary, M., Jafarzadeh, M., Rahimi, G. et al. The Modified h-Index of Scopus: A New Way in Fair Scientometrics. Pub Res Q 34, 430–455 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-018-9587-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-018-9587-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation