Schubert and Glänzel performed a systematic analysis of h-type indices for journals 15. For example, Braun, Glänzel, & Schubert suggested that the h-type index may be a useful complement to journal impact factors 14. Indeed, the h-index or h-type indices were used to complement journal impact factors or to rank scientific journals. Meanwhile, a number of researchers explored the possibility of using the h-index to complement or correct the traditional impact factor. Recent studies of the h-index were reviewed 10, 11, 12, 13. For example, the h-index or h-type indices were used for evaluating physicists 7, evaluating the 100 most prolific economists 8, and for evaluating chemical research groups correlated with peer judgment 9. The h-index was quickly adopted in various research areas. On the other hand, Hirsch launched a new study direction of scientometrics by proposing a novel index, now known as the h-index 6. (iii) The JCR impact factor is relatively easily manipulated by increasing self-citations. (ii) For the same reason, the JCR impact factor as an index of citations per publication usually rewards low productivity, and penalizes high productivity 6. These shortcomings include: (i) Because the JCR impact factor is only an average citation received, it does not possess the ability to discriminate the shapes of citation distribution curves, leading to cases in which the same impact factor may correspond to different journals with different citation distributions. However, the impact factor suffers from a number of shortcomings and limitations 2, 3, 4, 5. Since then, the impact factor has become the most commonly used assessment tool for ranking and evaluating scientific journals. The concept of the impact factor was proposed by Garfield 1 about 60 years ago.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |