Ya en Bibliometria Alvaro nos habló del H-Index y del posterior estudio de Bornmann, Lutz publicado en Scientometrics. Un último trabajo sobre este valor y su correlación con los indicadores clásicos es el realizado por Van Raan:
Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups
"In this paper we present characteristics of the statistical correlation between the Hirsch (h-) index and several standard bibliometric indicators, as well as with the results of peer review judgment. We use the results of a large evaluation study of 147 university chemistry research groups in the Netherlands covering the work of about 700 senior researchers during the period 1991-2000. Thus, we deal with research groups rather than individual scientists, as we consider the research group as the most important work floor unit in research, particularly in the natural sciences. Furthermore, we restrict the citation period to a three-year window instead of ‘life time counts’ in order to focus on the impact of recent work and thus on current research performance. Results show that the h-index and our bibliometric ‘crown indicator’ both relate in a quite comparable way with peer judgments. But for smaller groups in fields with ‘less heavy citation traffic’ the crown indicator appears to be a more appropriate measure of research performance. "
Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups
"In this paper we present characteristics of the statistical correlation between the Hirsch (h-) index and several standard bibliometric indicators, as well as with the results of peer review judgment. We use the results of a large evaluation study of 147 university chemistry research groups in the Netherlands covering the work of about 700 senior researchers during the period 1991-2000. Thus, we deal with research groups rather than individual scientists, as we consider the research group as the most important work floor unit in research, particularly in the natural sciences. Furthermore, we restrict the citation period to a three-year window instead of ‘life time counts’ in order to focus on the impact of recent work and thus on current research performance. Results show that the h-index and our bibliometric ‘crown indicator’ both relate in a quite comparable way with peer judgments. But for smaller groups in fields with ‘less heavy citation traffic’ the crown indicator appears to be a more appropriate measure of research performance. "
1 comentario:
Primera pisada entre weblogs bibliométricos. Estaba yo preparando un post sobre este artículo. Pondré los comentarios por acá.
Van Raan, de quien ya hablé en BiDo por su genial artículo de respuesta al trabajo del Ranking Universitario de Beijing, vuelve a "fustigar" con otra respuesta (mucho más elogiosa que la otra). Dice en un párrafo del artículo: Argumenta Hirsch como excusa para no usar número total de citas y el número de citas por artículo, que es complicado de obtener (hard to find). Y Van Raan le contesta que no es complicado para un grupo de investigación de bibliometría serio. Y dice que el argumento de Hirsch es comparable a decir que los datos sobre el centro de la galaxia obtenidos por el Hubble tienen la desventaja de no estar al alcance de los astrónomos aficionados.
Concluye el artículo que el índice H se acerca mucho a la opinión de los pares, si bien no alcanza al "Crown indicator" al no permitir realizar correctamente comparaciones entre distintas especialidades (entre especialidades con distintos hábitos de citación).
Actualizaré el post de Bibliometría con el tuyo y con el artículo, pero eso será, el año que viene (feliz que sea para todos, por cierto).
Publicar un comentario