Abstract
For the recent decades, self-citations have been extensively studied by the academia, therein Web of Science (WoS) citations count and h-index are being considered as the benchmark parameters. The WoS is used to determine citations based on the Institute for Scientific Information’s (ISI) master list. Towards this end, Google Scholar maintains a broad source of the research articles. However, Google Scholar does not exclude self-citations from the list of citations of one particular journal, author or co-author. The Google Scholar citation statistics are, therefore, not regarded as highly accurate. In this paper, we propose an updated h-index for Google Scholar by first quantifying and thereafter excluding the self-citations from the h-index. We target the two aspects of Google Scholar that belong to the evaluation of the quality of Google Scholar sources and the self-citation’ records available in the citation lists. In our analysis, we have taken two datasets. The first dataset is composed of scientists awarded by the Scientometrics, which is recorded from the Google Scholar. According to this dataset, 28 scientists have been awarded as best researchers on the basis of their maximum citations and the h-indexes. The second dataset includes 16 non-award winner scientists. Both datasets include records falling in the period of 1984 to 2017. Based on analysis of award winner scientists’ data, the aggregated journal self-citations are observed as 3.95%, whereas author and coauthor self-citations are found as 2.86% and 3.33%, respectively. In contrast, non-award winner scientists have average journal biased citation as 1.22%, author biased citations as 0.41% and co-author biased citations as 0.90%. We consider three types of the self-citations, i.e., journal, author, and coauthor for each scientist to cumulatively calculate the revised h-index. We obtained a new ranking of the scientists, which is based on a more accurate updated h-index. The updated h-index for the Google Scholar can be used for a more accurate academic ranking of the authors and the research articles.
Highlights
In academics, the h-index is used to measure the productivity of the individual researchers, h-index of an article h in the descending order of citations cannot have citations less than the value of h
37 h-index variants are reviewed based on the meta-analysis in [2], in which it is concluded that most of the variants are redundant since they are correlated to the h-index
We propose a variant of h-index called updated h-index to eliminate self-citations
Summary
The h-index is used to measure the productivity of the individual researchers, h-index of an article h in the descending order of citations cannot have citations less than the value of h. Article 43 must has citations greater than or equal to 43. If the article 43 has citations less than 43 the article cannot be included in h-core. The associate editor coordinating the review of this article and approving it for publication was Dimitrios Katsaros. Other hand, the h-core is the number of articles equal to or greater than h citations, e.g., h-index 43 means 43 articles are available in h-core [1]. 37 h-index variants are reviewed based on the meta-analysis in [2], in which it is concluded that most of the variants are redundant since they are correlated to the h-index. An assessment of the scientists based on the publications having citations more than their references is articulated in [3].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
