References

  1. T. J. Phelan, A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics 45, 117-136 (1999).
  2. C. Barnes, The h-index debate: an introduction for librarians. J. Acad. Libr. 43, 487-494 (2017).
  3. L. Wildgaard, "An overview of author-level indicators of research performance" in Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, M. Thelwall, Eds. (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019), 10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_14, pp. 361-396.
  4. J. E. Hirsch, An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 16569-16572 (2005).
  5. A. Schubert, G. Schubert, "All along the h-index-related literature: a guided tour" in Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, M. Thelwall, Eds. (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019), 10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_12, pp. 301-334.
  6. L. Egghe, How to improve the h -index. The Scientist 20, 15 (2006).
  7. C.-T. Zhang, The e-Index, complementing the h-Index for excess citations. PLoS One 4, e5429 (2009).
  8. T. Fenner, M. Harris, M. Levene, J. Bar-Ilan, A novel bibliometric index with a simple geometric interpretation. PLoS One 13, e0200098 (2018).
  9. M. Schreiber, A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. J. Informetr. 2, 211-216 (2008).
  10. M. Schreiber, How to modify the g-index for multi-authored manuscripts. J. Informetr. 4, 42-54 (2010).
  11. D. F. Thompson, E. C. Callen, M. C. Nahata, New indices in scholarship assessment. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 73, 111-111 (2009).
  12. L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, H.-D. Daniel, 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. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec. 59, 830-837 (2008).
  13. L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, S. E. Hug, H.-D. Daniel, A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. J. Informetr. 5, 346-359 (2011).
  14. R. Costas, M. Bordons, The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. J. Informetr. 1, 193-203 (2007).
  15. T. R. Anderson, R. K. S. Hankin, P. D. Killworth, Beyond the Durfee square: enhancing the h-index to score total publication output. Scientometrics 76, 577-588 (2008).
  16. P. D. Batista, M. G. Campiteli, O. Kinouchi, Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics 68, 179-189 (2006).
  17. C. D. Kelly, M. D. Jennions, The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 167-170 (2006).
  18. J. E. Hirsch, Does the h index have predictive power? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19193 (2007).
  19. L. Bornmann, Redundancies in h index variants and the proposal of the number of top-cited papers as an attractive indicator. Measurement 10, 149-153 (2012).
  20. R. Costas, T. Franssen, Reflections around ‘the cautionary use’ of the h-index: response to Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki. Scientometrics 115, 1125-1130 (2018).
  21. G. Abramo, C. A. D’Angelo, F. Viel, The suitability of h and g indexes for measuring the research performance of institutions. Scientometrics 97, 555-570 (2013).
  22. Y. Bhattacharjee, Impact factor. Science 309, 1181 (2005).
  23. E. Delgado López-Cózar, E. Orduña-Malea, A. Martín-Martín, "Google Scholar as a data source for research assessment" in Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators, W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, M. Thelwall, Eds. (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019), 10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_4, pp. 95-127.
  24. T. Tregenza, Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 349-350 (2002).
  25. V. Larivière, C. Ni, Y. Gingras, B. Cronin, C. R. Sugimoto, Global gender disparities in science. Nature 504, 211-213 (2013).
  26. L. Howe-Walsh, S. Turnbull, Barriers to women leaders in academia: tales from science and technology. Stud. High. Educ. 41, 415-428 (2016).
  27. D. W. Aksnes, Characteristics of highly cited papers. Res. Eval. 12, 159-170 (2003).
  28. D. Maliniak, R. Powers, B. F. Walter, The gender citation gap in international relations. Intl. Organ. 67, 889-922 (2013).
  29. C. Beaudry, V. Larivière, Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine. Res. Policy 45, 1790-1817 (2016).
  30. A. L. Atchison, Negating the gender citation advantage in political science. PS-Polit. Sci. Polit. 50, 448-455 (2017).
  31. R. Todeschini, A. Baccini, Handbook of Bibliometric Indicators: Quantitative Tools for Studying and Evaluating Research (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2016).
  32. J. Austin, Interdisciplinarity and tenure. Science 10 January (2003).
  33. E. Evans, Paradigms, Interdisciplinarity, and Tenure. PhD thesis (Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA, 2016), ISBN: 978-0-4386-6106-6, pp. 83.
  34. T. E. Carter, T. E. Smith, P. J. Osteen, Gender comparisons of social work faculty using H-Index scores. Scientometrics 111, 1547-1557 (2017).
  35. J. A. Teixeira da Silva, J. Dobránszki, Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes. Scientometrics 115, 1107-1113 (2018).
  36. J. A. Teixeira da Silva, J. Dobránszki, Rejoinder to “Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes”. Scientometrics 115, 1131-1137 (2018).