Are there really two types of h index variants? A validation study by using molecular life sciences data

Lutz Bornmann (), Rüdiger Mutz, Hans-Dieter Daniel, Gerlind Wallon and Anna Ledin

Research Evaluation, 2009, vol. 18, issue 3, 185-190

Abstract: Due to the disadvantages of the h index that have been named since Hirsch's first publication of the index in 2005 (Hirsch, 2005), a number of variants that are intended to compensate for the weaknesses have been proposed. Bornmann et al (2008a, 2009b) tested (1) whether the variants developed are associated with an incremental contribution for evaluation purposes against the h index, (2) whether there is any need at all for the h index and its variants besides standard bibliometric measures and (3) which of the h index and its variants predict peer assessments of scientific performance at best. As all results of Bornmann et al (2008a, 2009b) are based on bibliometric data on post-doctoral research fellowship recipients of the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds, it will be important to test whether the results can be validated using other data sets. Therefore, we examined in this study 693 applicants to the Long-Term Fellowship programme of the European Molecular Biology Organization whether the results found by Bornmann et al (2008a, 2009b) can be validated using another data set and further h index variants. All in all, with the findings in this study all results to the h index and its variants could be validated that are reported in Bornmann et al (2008a, 2009b). Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Date: 2009
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820209X466883 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:rseval:v:18:y:2009:i:3:p:185-190

Access Statistics for this article

Research Evaluation is currently edited by Julia Melkers, Emanuela Reale and Thed van Leeuwen

More articles in Research Evaluation from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().