A Comparative Study of H-Index and FWCI in Evaluation of Researchers' Scientific Productions Case Study: Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Faculty Member, Agricultural Center for Information Science & Technology, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Agricultural Center for Information Science & Technology, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran.

3 Assistant Professor, Agricultural Center for Information Science & Technology, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Purpose: The present research aims to identify the usefulness of the FWCI in evaluating the research activities of the researchers of the Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension Organization. In addition, the comparison of different subject fields of the organization in terms of the FWCI scores and also the comparison of the researchers' FWCI score of the organization with their H-index have been among other goals.
Methodology: The current research was conducted with a scientometric approach and using the citation analysis method. The research community consists of 13,066 international articles from 1,589 researchers of the Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension Organization, whose data was extracted from the Scopus database and the Scientometric System of the organization. For the current research, only those researchers who simultaneously had an H-index of 1 and whose articles also had the FWC score (1589 people in total) were extracted from this collection and their data for this study. Were analyzed. The calculation of the average FWCI of the researchers was based solely on the articles with the mentioned score, and the articles without this score were excluded from the scope of the review. Data analysis was done using Excel and SPSS software.
Findings: The findings of the research show that in the investigated period, an average of 8 articles were published by each researcher, and these articles received a total of 206,175 citations. The average H-index of these researchers was 4 and their average FWCI score was 0.398. The highest score obtained in the FWCI index was 9.85. Researchers with the rank of professor and assistant professor have equally obtained an average of 0.46 in this index, and researchers with the rank of associated professor have also obtained a score of 0.42. The average of this index for all eleven subject groups is less than 1, and at the same time, the subject group of forest and pasture and natural resources with a score of 0.61 is higher than the other groups and the subject group of education is lower than the other groups with a score of 0.35. At the same time, the subject group of forest and pasture is ranked fourth in the H-index with an average of 4.07. The results also show that there is no direct relationship between the researchers' H-index and their FWCI scores as a whole, or such a relationship is very weak. According to the findings of the research, in some areas (such as agricultural biotechnology), a higher average H-index does not necessarily mean a higher quality of the articles, and the weighted subject average of these articles is at a lower level compared to their peers globally. On the contrary, in some areas such as soil protection, water, and watershed management, although it has a lower H-index average, it has far better conditions in terms of FWCI average score.
Conclusion: In total, the score of the organization's researchers in the FWCI is much lower than the global average, both in general and in terms of subject groups. In addition, despite the lack of wide differences between FWCI and H-indexes, using FWCI in evaluating the articles of the organization's researchers can be more reliable.

Keywords

References

اکبری نیسیانی، س.، احتشام، ح.، تقی‌زاد، ح.، و دانشور، ح. (1400). جایگاه وزنی مقالات تولیدشده انستیتو کانسر دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تهران: یک مطالعه علم‌سنجی. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی, 7 (1)، 217-234. https://doi.org/ 10.22070/rsci.2020.5124.1348
عصاره، ف.، سهیلی، ف.، و کشوری، م. (1399). مقایسه دیدگاه خبرگان با شاخص اف.دبلیو.سی.آی از پایگاه سایول در شناسایی نویسندگان برتر (مطالعه موردی نویسندگان برتر ایران حوزه علوم پایه از 2013 تا 2018). پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 6 (1)، 77-98. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.3875.1244
 
Akbari Neisiani, S., Ehtesham, H., Taghizad, H., & Daneshvar, H. (2021). Position of scientific articles produced by the Cancer Institute of Tehran University of Medical Sciences in terms of weight: a scientometric study. Scientometrics Research Journal, 7(1), (Spring & Summer), 217-234. https://doi.org/ 10.22070/rsci.2020.5124.1348 [In Persian].
Bornmann, L. (2020). How can citation impact in bibliometrics be normalized? A new approach combining citing-side normalization and citation percentiles. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(4), 1553-1569. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00089
.................., & Haunschild, R. (2016). Normalization of Mendeley reader impact on the reader-and paper-side: A comparison of the mean discipline normalized reader score (MDNRS) with the mean normalized reader score (MNRS) and bare reader counts. Journal of informetrics, 10(3), 776-788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.015
……, & Marx, W. (2015). Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?, Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 408-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.01.006
Cheng, Z., Xingfu L., Xiong X., Chuanyi, Wang, C., (2021). What Can Influence the Quality of International Collaborative Publications: A Case Study of Humanities and Social Sciences International Collaboration in China’s Double First-Class Project Universities. Social Sciences. 10, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10030109
Elsevier (2016). International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base: A report prepared by Elsevier for the UK’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS).  Online access: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-research-base-international-comparison-2016
Huggett, S., James, C., & Palmaro, E. (2018, January). Field-weighting readership: How does it compare to field-weighting citations? In International Workshop on Altmetrics for Research Outputs Measurements and Scholarly Information Management, pp. 96-104, Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1053-9_8
Ioannidis, J. P., Boyack, K., & Wouters, P. F. (2016). Citation metrics: a primer on how (not) to normalize. PLoS biology, 14(9), e1002542. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002542
Jang, H. (2021). Relationship between publication indicators and citation impact indicators for publications in business, management, and accounting listed in Scopus from 2015 to 2019. Science Editing, 8(1), 18-25. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.225
Liu, Y., Ma, J., Song, H., Qian, Z., & Lin, X. (2021). Chinese universities’ cross-border research collaboration in the social sciences and its impact. Sustainability, 13(18), 10378. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354839765_Chinese_Universities'_Cross-Border_Research_Collaboration_in_the_Social_Sciences_and_Its_Impact
Mingers, J., & Meyer, M. (2017). Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1111-1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2415-x
Osareh, F., Soheili, F., & Keshvari, M. (2020). Comparison of the Experts’ Perspec-tives to SciVal Database’s FWCI Index in Identification of Top Authors (Case Study: Top Iranian Authors in Fundamental Sciences Area from 2013 to 2018). Scientometrics Research Journal, 6(1), (Spring & Summer), 77-98. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.3875.1244 [In Persian].
Purkayastha, A., Palmaro, E., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., & Baas, J. (2019). Comparison of two article-level, field-independent citation metrics: Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). Journal of Informetrics, 13(2), 635-642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.012
Sugimoto, C. R., & Weingart, S. (2015). The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity. Journal of Documentation, 71(4), 775-794. https://doi.org/10.1108/Jd-06-2014-0082
Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2021). Researchers’ attitudes towards the h-index on Twitter 2007–2020: criticism and acceptance. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5361-5368. https://doi.org/‌10.1007/s11192-021-03961-8
Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 872-894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001
Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2019). Field normalization of scientometric indicators. Springer handbook of science and technology indicators, 281-300. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_11
Zanotto, E. D., & Carvalho, V. (2021). Article age-and field-normalized tools to evaluate scientific impact and momentum. Scientometrics, 126(4), 2865-2883. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03877-3

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics