Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2017.34.3.209

A Proposal on Modified g-index for Evaluating Research Performance  

Lee, Jae Yun (명지대학교 문헌정보학과)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society for information Management / v.34, no.3, 2017 , pp. 209-228 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study suggests a new Hirsch-type composite index, 'transposed g-index' with a different viewpoint on h-index and g-index. From this new point of view, the axes of the graph describing the h-index and g-index are transposed so that the horizontal axis corresponds to the citation frequency threshold and the vertical axis corresponds to the number of documents. Based on this transposed graph, a new indicator transposed g-index is suggested and applied to library and information science researchers' outcomes in Korean Citation Index database. The results show that this new index has more discriminating power than h-index and g-index, and is more sensitive to differences in quantitative aspects than quality of research. It is expected that the transposed g-index will be helpful for the multifaceted evaluation of the research outcome because it has differentiating characteristics that distinguish consistent researchers who continue to study from those who do not.
Keywords
research performance; h-index; g-index; transposed g-index; researcher evaluation; research evaluation;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 9  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102   DOI
2 Huh, Sun (2014). Journal metrics-based position of diabetes & metabolism journal after the change of its text language to English. Diabetes and Metabolism Journal, 38(3), 187-193. http://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2014.38.3.187   DOI
3 Lee, Jongwook, & Yang, Kiduk (2015). Co-authorship credit allocation methods in the assessment of citation impact of chemistry faculty. Journal of the Korean Library and Information Science Society, 49(3), 273-289. http://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2015.49.3.273   DOI
4 Roemer, R. C., & Borchardt, R. (2015). Meaningful metrics: A 21st-century librarian's guide to bibliometrics, altmetrics, and research impact. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries.
5 Rousseau, R. (2006). New developments related to the Hirsch index. Science Focus, 1(4), 23-25. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/7616/1/Hirsch_new_developments.pdf
6 Schreiber, M. (2010). Revisiting the g-index: The average number of citations in the g-core. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 169-174. http://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21218   DOI
7 Todeschini, R., & Baccini, A. (2016). Handbook of bibliometric indicators: Quantitative tools for studying and evaluating research. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
8 유소영, 이재윤, 정은경, 이보람 (2015). 연구성과평가 지침 리뷰 및 국내 적용 제안을 위한 고찰. 정보관리학회지, 32(4), 249-272. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.249(Yu, So-Young, Lee, Jae Yun, Chung, EunKyung, & Lee, Boram (2015). A review of declarations on appropriate research evaluation for exploring their applications to research evaluation system of Korea. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 32(4), 249-272. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.249)   DOI
9 고영만, 조수련, 박지영 (2013). 학술지의 피인용횟수 순위를 적용한 tapered h-지수의 변형지표 "Kor-hT"에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 30(4), 111-131. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.111(Ko, Young Man, Cho, Soo-Ryun, & Park, Ji Young (2013). A study on the "Kor-hT", a modified tapered h-index, by applying the ranking according to the number of citations of journals in evaluating Korean journals. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 30(4), 111-131. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.4.111)   DOI
10 안혜림, 박지홍 (2016). 저자 인용 네트워크에서 명망성 지표의 차별된 영향력 측정기준에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 33(2), 61-76. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.2.061(Ahn, Hyerim, & Park, Ji-Hong (2016). The distinct impact dimensions of the prestige indices in author citation networks. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 33(2), 61-76. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.2.061)   DOI
11 이재윤 (2006). 연구성과 측정을 위한 h-지수의 개량에 관한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 23(3), 167-186. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.3.167(Lee, Jae Yun (2006). Some improvements on h-index: Measuring research outputs by citation. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 23(3), 167-186. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2006.23.3.167)   DOI
12 이재윤 (2014). 공동연구 네트워크 분석을 위한 중심성 지수에 대한 비교 연구. 정보관리학회지, 31(3), 153-179. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.3.153(Lee, Jae Yun (2014). A comparative study on the centrality measures for analyzing research collaboration networks. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 31(3), 153-179. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.3.153)   DOI
13 Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2008). Is g-index better than h-index? An exploratory study at the individual level. Scientometrics, 77(2), 267-288. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1997-0   DOI
14 이재윤 (2015). 문헌동시인용 분석을 통한 한국 문헌정보학의 연구 전선 파악. 정보관리학회지, 32(4), 77-106. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.077(Lee, Jae Yun (2015). Identifying the research fronts in Korean library and information science by document co-citation analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 32(4), 77-106. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.077)   DOI
15 이재윤 (2016). 공저자 수를 고려한 h-지수 산출. 정보관리학회지, 33(3), 7-29. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.3.007(Lee, Jae Yun (2016). Calculating the h-index and its variants considering the number of authors in a paper. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 33(3), 7-29. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2016.33.3.007)   DOI
16 이재윤, 최상희 (2015). 논문 인용 영향력 측정 지수의 편향성에 대한 연구. 정보관리학회지, 32(4), 205-221. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.205(Lee, Jae Yun, & Choi, Sanghee (2015). Discipline bias of document citation impact indicators: Analyzing articles in Korean Citation Index. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 32(4), 205-221. http://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.205)   DOI
17 Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2011). The h index as a research performance indicator. European Science Editing, 37, 77-80. Retrieved from http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/icons/viewpoints.pdf
18 Burrell, Q. L. (2007). On the h-index, the size of the Hirsch core and Jin's A-index. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 170-177. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.01.003   DOI
19 Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131-152. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7   DOI
20 Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Use and abuse. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.