

ORIGINAL ARTICLE 

Year : 2016  Volume
: 1
 Issue : 1  Page : 711 

An adjusted hindex: A new recipe to evaluate the researcher's productivity
Anwar Hamdi
Department of Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Date of Web Publication  7Aug2020 
Correspondence Address: M.D., Ph.D Anwar Hamdi Department of Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia P.O. Box 1882 Abha Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/1658743X.291601
Objectives: To present an equation that will solve some of the problems related to the utilization of hindex in researcher’s evaluation. Methods: Adjusted hindex TOTAL = (Ad hindex1) + (Ad hindex2) + (Ad hindex3) and so on till (Ad hindex N) (N = Number of last publication). (Ad hindex1: for the First (1) publication); (Ad hindex1) = (A1)*(B1)*(C1)/(D1); A1 = H –index of the journal where the publication (1) had been published; B1 = the number of citations for publication (1); C1 = {(number of authors +1) – (order of author)}/(number of authors for publication 1); D1 = 1 + current yearyear of publication (1). Results: The obtained results enlightening the superiority of the new equation to furnish the appropriate recognition to a scientist. Conclusion: The proposed equation will solve many of the problems linked to the hindex.
Keywords: hindex; researcher’s evaluation; adjusted hindex
How to cite this article: Hamdi A. An adjusted hindex: A new recipe to evaluate the researcher's productivity. King Khalid Univ J Health Scii 2016;1:711 
How to cite this URL: Hamdi A. An adjusted hindex: A new recipe to evaluate the researcher's productivity. King Khalid Univ J Health Scii [serial online] 2016 [cited 2021 Jan 25];1:711. Available from: https://www.kkujhs.org/text.asp?2016/1/1/7/291601 
Introduction   
The hindex assesses at once the quality and importance of scientific output of a researcher. However; it is not an ideal one.
In 2005, Hirsch introduced the hindex in a successful attempt to measure instantaneously the excellence and magnitude of scientific productivity of a researcher.^{[1]} The hindex is identified by how many h of a researcher’s publications (Np) have at least h citations each. The higher the number of significant papers, the higher the hindex.
However; the hindex is not a faultless one. Some of the limitations and weaknesses of the hindex are:^{[2],[3],[4]} a) It overlooks the number and position of authors on a paper which in certain scientific areas is important. b) It restrains authors by the total number of publications does not taking into consideration the effects of research period.
c) It has somewhat low resolution in that several researchers end up in the same range since it becomes progressively hard to raise the hindex the higher it becomes. d) It does not lessen with time and consequently cannot reveal the fading research productivity of a researcher. e) It may possibly give rise to misrepresentative information about a scientist’s input. f) It completely ignores where the work had been published.
A number of variants of the hindex had been suggested to surmount some of its drawbacks.
The mindex, which is expressed as the hindex divided by the number of years since the researcher’s first publication, was suggested to normalize the hindex so that early and latestage scientists can be contrasted.^{[1]}
The gindex ^{[5],[6]} was work up in an effort to provide more weight to highlycited papers and the appropriate acknowledgment for a researcher who had published a milestone article.
In spite of this; there is no single modified hindex on hand to offer a reliable way to overcome the above flaws. Here is an attempt to present an equation that will solve many of the problems of the hindex.
Method   
Adjusted hindex TOTAL = (Ad hindex1) + (Ad hindex2) + (Ad hindex3) and so on till (Ad hindex N)
(N = Number of last publication).
(Ad hindex1: for the First (1) publication)
(Ad hindex2: for the Second (2) publication)
And so on till
(Ad hindex N: = for the Last (N) publication)
(Ad hindex1) = (A1)*(B1)*(C1)/(D1)
A1 = H –index of the journal where the publication (1) had been published.
B1 = the number of citations for publication (1)
C1 = {(number of authors +1)  (order of author)}/(number of authors for publication 1)
D1 = 1 + current yearyear of publication (1)
Results   
An example:
Let consider the following two researchers (A and B) who had published their research papers as follow:
As of this table [Table 1], it will be simply calculated the following indexes and subsequently extra recognition will be acknowledged to researcher A.
Researcher A: hindex = 3, mindex = 0.3 and gindex = 4
Researcher B: hindex = 2, mindex = 0.2 and gindex = 3
But; by applying the proposed equation, it will be obvious that the surplus credit should be granted to researcher B as follows:
(Ad hindex TOTAL for Researcher A)
(Ad hindex1) = (A1)*(B1)*(C1)/(D1)
A1 = H –index of the journal where the publication (1) had been published = 25
B1 = the number of citations for publication (1) = 10
C1 = {(number of authors +1) – (order of author)}/(number of authors for publication 1) = (5+1  3)/5 = 3/5
D1 = 1 + current yearyear of publication (1) = 1 +2015 – 2005 = 11
(Ad hindex 1) = (25)*(10)*(3/5)/(11) = 13.64
Then
(Ad hindex2) = (20)*(3)*(1)/(9) = 6.67
(Ad hindex3) = (30)*(3)*(1/3)/(4) = 7.50
(Ad hindex4) = (32)*(1)*(1)/(3) = 10.67
(Ad hindex N=5) = (AN)*(BN)*(CN)/(DN)
(Ad hindex N) = (25)*(1)*(1/2)/(2) = 6.25
Adjusted hindex TOTAL for researcher A = (13.64) + (6.67) + (7.50) + (10.67) + (6.25) = 44.73
(Ad hindex TOTAL for Researcher B)
(Ad hindex 1) = (A1)*(B1)*(C1)/(D1)
A1 = H index of the journal where the publication (1) had been published = 40
B1 = the number of citations for publication (1) = 8
C1 = {(number of authors +1) – (order of author)}/(number of authors for publication 1) = (4+1 – 2)/4 = 3/4
D1 = 1 + current yearyear of publication (1) = 1 +2015 – 2005 = 11
(Ad hindex 1) = (40)*(8)*(3/4)/(11) = 21.82
Then
(Ad hindex2) = (30)*(2)*(1)/(9) = 6.67
(Ad hindex3) = (50)*(2)*(2/3)/(4) = 16.67
(Ad hindex4) = (30)*(2)*(2/3)/(3) = 13.33
(Ad hindex N=5) = (AN)*(BN)*(CN)/(DN)
(Ad hindex N) = (20)*(2)*(1)/(2) = 20
Adjusted hindex TOTAL for researcher B = (21.82) + (6.67) + (16.67) + (13.33) + (20) = 78.49
Adjusted hindex TOTAL for researcher A = 44.73
Adjusted hindex TOTAL for researcher B = 78.49
In addition, the above results revealing in an obvious way that the productivity of the researcher B was always better than the productivity of researcher A (except for year 2007). Moreover; while researcher B was showing clear improvement over the years (after 2007), researcher A was not. [Figure 1].  Figure 1: The fluctuation of the adjusted hindex throughout periods of productivity for two researchers
Click here to view 
Discussion   
This Adjusted hindex will be taking care of an important areas in science’s publication related to a) The number and position of authors. b) The effects of research period. c) The yearly research productivity for a researcher. d) The real contribution of a researcher. e) A very important issue that is related to where the research output had been published.
Journal ranking is broadly utilized in academic circles in the assessment of an academic journal’s influence and excellence. Journal rankings are proposed to indicate the position of a journal within its field, the relative difficulty of being published in that journal, and the notability associated with it. Consequently, it ought to be used as official research appraisal means.
Quite a few journallevel metrics have been suggested, nearly all citationbased:
Expert survey,^{[7]} Publication power approach (PPA),^{[8]} Altmetrics,^{[9]} diamScore,^{[10]} Impact factor, Eigen factor, SCImago Journal Rank and hindex.^{[11],[12],[13],[14]}
Numerous researchers worldwide make use of the selective ISI (Institute for Scientific Information known as Thomson ISI database) group of journals as both their major source of scientific information and as their preferred way for publishing research results. There are 22878 journals index in ISI database.^{[15]} Hindex for these journals starts from 0 to 890. About 72.44% of these journals have hindex less than 30 and only 0.62% has hindex above 200.^{[15]} It is unquestionable that publishing in high hindex journal is very distinguished and it is big achievement for any researcher to get his work pass the tough reviewing procedures in such journals.
Usually, it is judged that the influence of a researcher’s work is substantial on a given field if his/her articles are repeatedly quoted by other researchers. Valuable scientific papers are referring to more repeatedly in other papers than less important ones. A citation to papers indicates that someone realized that your work is merit enough to be pointed out. If a manuscript was not at all cited was it worth performing the research initially?
The number of citations for each publication of a researcher is easily obtainable from different sources, e.g., Web of Science (Web of Knowledge), Google Scholar and Scopus.
There are a number of methods suggested to integrate the proportional input of every author to a paper, for example by order of contributors’ names.^{[16],[17],[18],[19]} The proposed equation, in my opinion, makes available an easy approach to estimate the credit linked with the sequence of authors’ names.
As a final point, the D part of the equation {(Ad hindex n) = (An)*(Bn)*(Cn)/ (Dn)} which was calculated as Dn = 1 + current yearyear of publication number n, will permit the comparisons among researchers with different time spans in the academic professions. Additionally, it will allow tracking the author’s productivity throughout the years of his/her career.
Conclusion   
The described equation takes into consideration several values that measure the different qualities of the researcher accomplishment.
References   
1.  Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS 2005; 102 (46): 1656972. 
2.  Bletsas A, Sahalos JN. Hirsch index rankings require scaling and higher moment. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tech 2009; 60(12), 257786. 
3.  Sekercioglu CH. Quantifying coauthor contributions”. Science 2008; 322 (5900): 371. 
4.  Zhang CT. A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank”. EMBO Reports 2009; 10 (5): 4167. 
5.  Egghe L. Theory and practise of the gindex. Scientometrics 2006; 69(1): 13152. 
6.  Egghe L. An improvement of the hindex: The gindex. ISSI Newsletter 2006; 2(1): 89. 
7.  Serenko A, Dohan M. Comparing the expert survey and citation impact journal ranking methods: Example from the field of Artificial Intelligence. J Informetrics 2011; 5(4), 62948. 
8.  Holsapple CW. A Publication Power Approach for identifying premier information systems journals. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tech 2008; 59(2): 16685. 
9.  Alhoori, H, Furuta R. Can Social Reference Management Systems Predict a Ranking of Scholarly Venues? Res Adv Tech Digital Lib. Lecture Notes in Comp Sci 2013; 8092: 138143. 
10.  Cornillier F, Charles V. Measuring the attractiveness of academic journals: A direct influence aggregation model. Oper Res Letters, 2015; 43(2), 17276. 
11.  Braun T, Glänzel W, Schubert A. A Hirschtype index for journals. Scientometrics 2006; 69(1):16973. 
12.  Jokic M. Hindex as a new scientometric indicator. Biochemia Medica. 2009; 19: 5 9. 
13.  Malesios C, Abas Z. An Examination of the Impact of Animal and Dairy science Journals Based on Traditional and Newly Developed Bibliometric Indices. J Animal Sci, 2012; 517081. 
14.  Malesios C, Arabatzis G. An evaluation of forestry journals using bibliometric indices. Ann Forest Res 2012; 55(2), 14764. 
15.  SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator (in 12/2015). 
16.  Laurance WF. Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists. Nature 2006; 442: 26. 
17.  Tscharntke T, Hochberg ME, Rand TA, et al. Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications”. PLoS Biology 2007; 5(1): e18. 
18.  Verhagens JV, Wallace KJ, Collins SC et al. QUAD system offers fair shares to all authors. Nature 2003; 426: 602. 
19.  Weltzien JF, Belote RT, Williams LT, et al. Authorship in ecology: Attribution, accountability, and responsibility”. Front Ecol Environm 2006; 4: 43541. 
[Figure 1]
[Table 1]
