The Compound F²-index and the Compound H-index as Extension of the f² and h-indexes from a Dynamic Perspective ①

doi:10.2478/jdis-2020-0019

Abstract

Abstract:

Purpose: Elaboration of an indicator to include the dynamic aspect of citations in bibliometric indexes.

Design/methodology/approach: A new bibliometric methodology—the f2-index—is applied at the career level and at the level of the recent 5 years to analyze the dynamic aspect of bibliometrics. The method is applied, as an illustration, to the field of corporate governance.

Findings: The compound F2-index as an extension of the f2-index recognizes past achievements but also values new research work with potential. The method is extended to the h-index and the h2-index. An activity index is defined as the ratio between the recent h’-index to the career h-index.

Research limitations: The compound F2 and H-indexes are PAC, probably approximately correct, and depend on the selection and database.

Practical implications: The F2- and H compound indexes allow identifying the rising stars of a field from a dynamic perspective. The activity ratio highlights the contribution of younger researchers.

Originality/value: The new methodology demonstrates the underestimated dynamic capacity of bibliometric research.

Key words: Bibliometrics, H-index, Dynamism

Fassin, Yves. "The Compound F²-index and the Compound H-index as Extension of the f² and h-indexes from a Dynamic Perspective ^①." Journal of Data and Information Science, vol.5, no.3, 2020, pp.71-83. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2020-0019

Figures/Tables 9

Figure 1.

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

References 16

1	Aguilera R.V., Filatotchev I., Gospel H., & Jackson G . ( 2008). An organizational approach to comparative corporate governance: Costs, contingencies, and complementarities. Organization science, 19(3), 475-492. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0322 doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0322
2	Bornmann L., & Daniel H.-D . ( 2009). The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Reports, 10(1), 2-6. doi: 10.1038/embor.2008.233 doi: 10.1038/embor.2008.233 pmid: 19079129
3	Bornmann L., & Leydesdorff L . ( 2018). Count highly-cited papers instead of papers with h citations: use normalized citation counts and compare “like with like”! Scientometrics, 115(2), 1119-1123. pmid: 29628536
4	Bornmann L., Mutz R., & Daniel H.-D . ( 2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 59(5), 830-837. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1532-2890
5	Bouyssou D., & Marchant T . ( 2011). Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1761-1769. doi: 10.1002/asi.21544
6	Costas R., & Bordons M . ( 2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 193-203. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001
7	Durisin B., & Puzone F . ( 2009). Maturation of corporate governance research, 1993-2007: An assessment. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 266-291.
8	Egghe L . ( 2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152.
9	Fassin Y . ( 2018). A new qualitative rating system for scientific publications and a fame Index for academics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(11), 1396-1399.
10	Fassin Y . ( 2019). The compound F²-index as extension of the f²-index in a dynamic perspective: An application in corporate governance research. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics, Rome.
11	Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., De Rijcke S., & Rafols I . ( 2015). Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. doi: 10.1038/520429a pmid: 25903611
12	Hirsch J.E . ( 2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569-16572.
13	Kosmulski M . ( 2006). A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(3), 4-6.
14	OECD (1999). “Principles of corporate governance”, http://www.encycogov.com/
15	Rousseau R . ( 2016). Citation data as proxy for quality or scientific influence are at best PAC (Probably Approximately Correct). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(12), 3092-3094.
16	Waltman L., & Van Eck N.J . ( 2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406-415.

Category	AAA	AA	A	BA	BB	B	C	Z
n	h2	h/2	h	g	5%	10%	25%	100%
CG field	16	42	83	208	184	369	922	3,686
CGIR	7	19	37	89	42	84	210	841
CG rec	7	14	27	74	86	172	430	1,722

Category		AAA	AA	A	BA	BB	B	C	D	E	F	Z
thresholds	max	h2	h/2	h	g	5%	10%	25%	50%	75%	90%	100%
CG field	896	264	141	83	45	49	28	11	2	0	0	0
CGIR	160	61	48	37	23	36	23	13	6	1	0	0
CG rec	153	57	41	27	15	13	9	3	1	0	0	0

Researcher	tot cit
Peng MW	3271
Wright M	3140
Aguilera	3062
Hoskisson	2996
Westphal	2905
Filatotchev	2724
Zajac	2293
Dalton DR	1847
Daily CM	1594

Researcher	f²
Peng MW	23.5
Westphal	21
Aguilera	20.5
Zajac	19
Filatotchev	18.5
Hoskisson	17
Wright M	16.5
Dalton DR	15
Daily CM	14.5

Researcher	r cit	r n	r f2	r f³’	r F²	r h	r h²	r h’	r H	r H2	Af	Ah	Ah²
Peng MW	1	8	1	1	1	4	4	5	3	2	0.23	0.47	0.33
Aguilera	3	3	3	1	2	3	3	1	2	1	0.26	0.56	0.56
Filatotchev	6	1	5	3	3	1	2	5	1	2	0.25	0.23	0.33
Westphal	5	7	2	20	4	2	1	20	7	2	0.13	0.11	0.20
Van Essen	T75	22	27	4	19	19	19	17	10	10	0.62	0.63	0.60
Zattoni	22	2	15	5	14	6	10	1	5	6	0.42	0.53	0.67