Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige
| Autor/inn/en | Cho, Kit W.; Neely, James H. |
|---|---|
| Titel | Is Hirsch's "H" the Best Predictor of the Number of a Researcher's Extremely Highly Cited Articles? |
| Quelle | In: Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 10 (2012) 3, S.157-160 (4 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift
PDF als Volltext |
| Sprache | englisch |
| Dokumenttyp | gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz |
| ISSN | 1536-6367 |
| DOI | 10.1080/15366367.2012.720195 |
| Schlagwörter | Stellungnahme; Citation Indexes; Citation Analysis; Outcome Measures; Scholarship; Statistical Analysis; Psychological Studies; Journal Articles; Cognitive Psychology; Psychologists; Correlation; Prediction |
| Abstract | Ruscio et al. (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) have provided an impressively comprehensive conceptual and empirical psychometric analysis of 22 modern-day citation measures. Their analyses show that although numerous measures have been developed to ameliorate perceived limitations of Hirsch's (2005) "h" index (which is perhaps the most prevalent measure used to evaluate academic productivity and is defined as the largest number "h" such that at least "h" articles are cited at least "h" times), they are not superior to "h" (and are redundant with "h" because they are highly correlated with it). Because these other measures often suffer from being conceptually opaque and difficult to compute, and because "h" is determined by both the quantity and impact of a faculty member's publications, Ruscio et al. endorse using "h" to evaluate the scholarly impact of a person (or a variation on "h" to evaluate a department's or university's scholarly impact). In this commentary, the authors test the generality of a subset of Ruscio et al.'s findings for a sample of 78 elite cognitive psychologists who published multiple, very high impact papers between 1950 and 2004. First, they examine whether some of the citation indices that Ruscio et al. considered are as highly intercorrelated for this sample as they were for Ruscio et al.'s sample of 1,750 researchers of all academic ranks currently on the faculties of 175 PhD-granting institutions. Second, they test the generality of Ruscio et al.'s finding that "h" does as good a job or a better job of predicting a person's academic rank and a psychology department's National Research Council ranking as do other measures of scholarly impact. They do this by seeing how "h" fares relative to other measures in predicting the number of the top 500 most-cited behavioral-cognitive-psychology journal articles an elite sample of cognitive psychologists have published. Overall the authors' data show that although a researcher's "h" index can be used to predict the number of extremely highly cited papers that he or she will produce, other measures such as "a", "r", and "g", which are more heavily weighted by impact than by number of publications, do a better job. Thus, the important point is that although "h" should be considered the single best measure for predicting the status of an individual researcher or research group, as Ruscio et al. have argued, it is not necessarily the best measure for predicting an individual researcher's ability to produce articles that are extremely well cited. (Contains 1 table and 2 footnotes.) (ERIC). |
| Anmerkungen | Psychology Press. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Erfasst von | ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC |
| Update | 2017/4/10 |
Literaturbeschaffung und Bestandsnachweise in Bibliotheken prüfen
Permalink als QR-Code
Inhalt auf sozialen Plattformen teilen (nur vorhanden, wenn Javascript eingeschaltet ist)
Teile diese Seite:
