Comparison of h-index and other bibliometrics in Google Scholar and Scopus for articles published by translational science trainees

Laura D. Davis, Corbyn M. Gilmore, Adriana Vargus, Henry Ogbeifun, Yong-Hee P. Chun and Christopher R. Frei ()
Additional contact information
Laura D. Davis: University of Texas at Austin
Corbyn M. Gilmore: University of Texas at Austin
Adriana Vargus: University of Texas at Austin
Henry Ogbeifun: University of Texas at Austin
Yong-Hee P. Chun: University of Texas Health San Antonio
Christopher R. Frei: University of Texas at Austin

Palgrave Communications, 2025, vol. 12, issue 1, 1-4

Abstract: Abstract Bibliometrics can help program directors to conduct objective and fair assessments of scholar impact, progress, and collaboration, as well as benchmark performance against peers and programs. However, different academic search engines use different methodologies to provide bibliometric information, so intermixing results from multiple search engines might contribute to inequitable decision-making. Google Scholar and Scopus provide useful bibliometric information for scholars, including the h-index; however, a search of the literature revealed h-index was higher in Google Scholar than Scopus in other scholar populations; therefore, we hypothesized that h-index might also be higher in Google Scholar than Scopus for translational science (TS) trainees. Trained investigators gathered scholarly profile information from Google Scholar and Scopus for all trainees from NIH-supported TS PhD and TS Training (TST) Programs for predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees. Investigators calculated number of citations/year and m-quotient using the data contained therein. M-quotient was defined as h-index divided by “n,” where “n” equaled the number of years since first publication. Investigators used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test to compare bibliometrics (citations, citations/year, h-index, and m-quotient) from both sources for TS students and trainees. A total of 38 trainees (13 TS PhD students and 26 TST trainees) had active profiles in both Google Scholar and Scopus. Of the TST trainees, 21 were predoctoral and five were postdoctoral trainees. All four metrics (citations, citations/year, h-index, and m-quotient) were significantly higher (p

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-04462-2 Abstract (text/html)
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:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04462-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/palcomms/about

DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-04462-2

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Palgrave Communications from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().