A Discrimination Index Based on Jain's Fairness Index to Differentiate Researchers with Identical H-index Values

Rochim, Adian Fatchur; Muis, Abdul; Sari, Riri Fitri

doi:10.2478/jdis-2020-0026

Abstract

Purpose

This paper proposes a discrimination index method based on the Jain's fairness index to distinguish researchers with the same H-index.

Design/methodology/approach

A validity test is used to measure the correlation of D-offset with the parameters, i.e. H-index, the number of cited papers, the total number of citations, the number of indexed papers, and the number of uncited papers. The correlation test is based on the Saphiro-Wilk method and Pearson's product-moment correlation.

Findings

The result from the discrimination index calculation is a two-digit decimal value called the discrimination-offset (D-offset), with a range of D-offset from 0.00 to 0.99. The result of the correlation value between the D-offset and the number of uncited papers is 0.35, D-offset with the number of indexed papers is 0.24, and the number of cited papers is 0.27. The test provides the result that it is very unlikely that there exists no relationship between the parameters.

Practical implications

For this reason, D-offset is proposed as an additional parameter for H-index to differentiate researchers with the same H-index. The H-index for researchers can be written with the format of “H-index: D-offset”.

Originality/value

D-offset is worthy to be considered as a complement value to add the H-index value. If the D-offset is added in the H-index value, the H-index will have more discrimination power to differentiate the rank of the researchers who have the same H-index.

References

Abramo, G., & D’angelo, C.A. (2014). How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics, 101(2), 1129–1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Aguillo, I.F. (2018). 2258 Highly Cited Researchers (h>100) according to their Google Scholar Citations public profiles. Retrieved from http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/58
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S.E., & Daniel, H.D. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.006
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Daraio, C. (2019). Econometric approaches to the measurement of research productivity. (M. Glänzel, Wolfgang and Moed, Henk F. and Schmoch, Ulrich, and Thelwall, Ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_24
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gagolewski, M., & Grzegorzewski, P. (2009). A geometric approach to the construction of scientific impact indices. Scientometrics, 81(3), 617–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2253-y
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Harzing, A.W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hauke, J., & Kossowski, T. (2011). Comparison of values of pearson's and spearman's correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaestiones Geographicae, 30(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10117-011-0021-1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hirsch, J.E., & Buela-Casal, G. (2014). The meaning of the h-index. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14(2), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70050-X
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jain, R., Chiu, D.-M., & Hawe, W.R. (1984). A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination for resource allocation in shared computer system. DEC Technical Report TR301. Retrieved from http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/papers/ftp/fairness.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jin, B.H., Liang, L.M., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-007-0145-9
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kosmulski, M. (2007). MAXPROD—A new index for assessment of the scientific output of an individual, and a comparison with the h-index. Cybermetrics, 11(1), 14–18.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kuan. (2011). Ranking patent assignee performance by h-index and shape descriptors. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
López-Cózar, E.D., Robinson-García, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2014). The Google Scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23056
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lou, W., & He, J. (2015). Does author affiliation reputation affect uncitedness? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2015.1450520100103
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mesiar, R., & Gagolewski, M. (2016). H-index and other sugeno integrals: Some defects and their compensation. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 6706(c), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2016.2516579
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mester, G. (2016). Rankings scientists, journals and countries using h-Index. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 14(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.14.1.1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meyers, M.A., & Quan, H. (2017). The use of the h-index to evaluate and rank academic departments. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 6(4), 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2017.09.004
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rochim, A.F., Muis, A., & Sari, R.F. (2017). Discrimination measurement method on H-index and G-index Using Jain's Fairness Index. In Proceedings of the—16th International Conference of International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, pp. 446–447. Wuhan, China.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rochim, A.F., Muis, A., & Sari, R.F. (2018). Improving fairness of H-index: RA-index. Journal of Library and Information Technology, 38(6), 378–386, https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.38.6.12937
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van Raan, A.F.J. (2004). Sleeping Beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018543.82441.f1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Waltman, L., Van Eck, N.J., & Wouters, P. (2013). Counting publications and citations: Is more always better? Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 635–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.04.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhang, C.T. (2013). The h’-Index, effectively improving the h-Index Based on the citation distribution. PLoS One, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059912
Search in Google Scholar Back to article