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

doi:10.2478/jdis-2020-0026

Abstract

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.

Key words: Discrimination index, D-offset, Validity, Jain’s fairness index

Fatchur Rochim, Adian, Abdul Muis, and Riri Fitri Sari. "A Discrimination Index Based on Jain’s Fairness Index to Differentiate Researchers with Identical H-index Values." Journal of Data and Information Science, vol.5, no.4, 2020, pp.5-18. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2020-0026

Figures/Tables 8

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Table 1

Table 2

Figure 6.

References 24

[1]	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 doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8
[2]	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
[3]	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 doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.006
[4]	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
[5]	Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7 doi: 10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7
[6]	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 doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-2253-y
[7]	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 doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
[8]	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 doi: 10.2478/v10117-011-0021-1
[9]	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
[10]	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
[11]	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
[12]	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 doi: 10.1007/s11434-007-0145-9
[13]	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.
[14]	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 doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.002
[15]	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 doi: 10.1002/asi.23056
[16]	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
[17]	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
[18]	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 doi: 10.7906/indecs.14.1.1
[19]	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 doi: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2017.09.004
[20]	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.
[21]	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
[22]	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 doi: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018543.82441.f1
[23]	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 doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2013.04.001
[24]	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 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062761 pmid: 23658649