H-index

H-index yoki Xirsh indeksi — ilmiy nashrlarning samaradorligi hamda ularga berilgan iqtiboslar taʼsirini oʻlchaydigan mualliflik darajasid agi metrik koʻrsatkich boʻlib, dastlab alohida olim yoki tadqiqotchi faoliyatini baholash uchun qoʻllanilgan. H-index Nobel mukofotini qoʻlga kiritish, ilmiy xodimlar dasturlariga qabul qilinish va yetakchi universitetlarda yuqori lavozimlarni egallash kabi muvaffaqiyat koʻrsatkichlari bilan oʻzaro bogʻliq^[1]. Mazkur indeks olimning eng koʻp iqtibos keltirilgan maqolalari toʻplamiga hamda ushbu maqolalarga boshqa nashrlarda berilgan iqtiboslar soniga asoslanadi. Yaqin davrlardan boshlab ushbu indeks nafaqat alohida olimlar, balki ilmiy jurnallarning^[2], shuningdek, muayyan olimlar guruhi (kafedra, universitet yoki butun bir mamlakat)ning ham ish samaradorligi va nufuzini baholash uchun qoʻllanila boshlandi^[3]. Ushbu koʻrsatkich 2005-yilda Kaliforniya universiteti (San-Diyego) fizigi Jorge E. Hirsch tomonidan nazariy fiziklar faoliyatining nisbiy sifatini aniqlash vositasi sifatida taklif etilgan va baʼzan u H-index yoki Xirsh raqami deb ham ataladi^[4].

Jorge E. Hirsch ushbu indeks yordamida boshqa bibliometrik koʻrsatkichlarning asosiy kamchiliklarini bartaraf etishni maqsad qilgan. Zero, nashr etilgan maqolalarning umumiy soni ilmiy ishlar sifatini hisobga olmaydi. Boshqa tomondan esa, iqtiboslarning umumiy soni koʻrsatkichiga juda katta nufuzga ega boʻlgan bitta ilmiy maqoladagi ishtirok kuchli taʼsir koʻrsatishi mumkin (masalan, keng ommalashgan yangi texnika, metod yoki yondashuvlarni taklif qiluvchi metodologik maqolalar juda koʻp miqdorda iqtibos toʻplashi mumkin). Turli ilm-fan sohalarida iqtibos keltirish anʼanalari bir-biridan sezilarli darajada farq qilgani sababli, ushbu indeks faqat bitta sohada faoliyat yuritayotgan olimlarni oʻzaro solishtirishda eng samarali natijani beradi^[5].

H-index ilmiy natijalarning sifati va miqdorini bir vaqtning oʻzida oʻlchashga moʻljallangan. h-indeksining fizika sohasidagi ilmiy mukofotlar bilan Kendall korrelyatsiyasi 2010-yilda 34 foizni tashkil etgan boʻlsa, 2019-yilga kelib nol foizga tushgani aniqlangan^[6].

Kiritilgan maʼlumotlar

H-indexni iqtiboslar bazalaridan foydalangan holda qoʻlda yoki avtomatik vositalar yordamida aniqlash mumkin. „Scopus“ va „Web of Science“ kabi obuna boʻlishni talab qiluvchi maʼlumotlar bazalari avtomatik hisoblagichlarni taqdim etadi. 2011-yil iyul oyidan boshlab „Google“ kompaniyasi oʻzining „Google Scholar“ platformasidagi muallif profillarida avtomatik ravishda hisoblanadigan H-index va i10-indeks koʻrsatkichlarini taqdim etib kelmoqda^[7]. Bundan tashqari, „INSPIRE-HEP“ kabi maxsus maʼlumotlar bazalari yuqori energiyalar fizikasi sohasida faoliyat yuritayotgan tadqiqotchilar uchun H-indexni avtomatik ravishda hisoblash imkoniyatiga ega.

Manbalar qamrovining turlichaligi sababli, har bir maʼlumotlar bazasi bitta olim uchun turlicha Xirsh koʻrsatkichini chiqarishi ehtimoli yuqori^[8]. Batafsil oʻtkazilgan tadqiqot shuni koʻrsatdiki, „Web of Science“ bazasi jurnallardagi nashrlarni juda yaxshi qamrab oladi, biroq yuqori nufuzga ega ilmiy konferensiya materiallarini qamrab olish darajasi past. „Scopus“ konferensiyalarni yaxshiroq qamrab oladi, ammo 1996-yilgacha boʻlgan nashrlarni qamrov darajasi past hisoblanadi; „Google Scholar“ esa konferensiyalar va aksariyat jurnallarni (hammasini boʻlmasa-da) qamrab olish boʻyicha eng yaxshi koʻrsatkichga ega, biroq „Scopus“ kabi uning ham 1990-yilgacha boʻlgan nashrlarni qamrab olish imkoniyati cheklangan^[9]. Konferensiya materiallari toʻplamlarining hisobga olinmasligi, ayniqsa, informatika sohasidagi olimlar uchun jiddiy muammo tugʻdiradi, chunki bu sohada konferensiya materiallari ilmiy adabiyotlarning muhim qismi hisoblanadi^[10]. „Google Scholar“ platformasi „arvoh iqtiboslar“ yaratish, iqtiboslar hisobiga norasmiy ilmiy adabiyotlarni ham qoʻshib yuborish hamda qidiruv terminlarini birlashtirishda Bul mantigʻi qoidalariga rioya qilmaslik kabi kamchiliklari uchun tanqid qilinadi. Masalan, Meho va Yang tomonidan olib borilgan tadqiqot shuni koʻrsatdiki, „Google Scholar“ tizimi „Web of Science“ va „Scopus“ bazalari birgalikda aniqlaganidan 53 foiz koʻproq iqtibos topgan, biroq „Google Scholar“ tomonidan aniqlangan ushbu qoʻshimcha iqtiboslarning aksariyati past nufuzli jurnallar yoki konferensiya materiallariga toʻgʻri kelgani sababli, ular olimlarning oʻzaro nisbiy reytingini sezilarli darajada oʻzgartirmagan^[11]. Bitta tadqiqotchining turli iqtiboslar bazalarida oʻlchangan Xirsh koʻrsatkichlari oʻrtasidagi baʼzan yuzaga keladigan katta tafovutlarni bartaraf etish uchun maʼlumotlar bazalaridagi soxta inkorlar (bor iqtibosni hisobga olmaslik) soxta tasdiqlarga (yoʻq iqtibosni qoʻshib yuborish) qaraganda koʻproq muammo tugʻdiradi deb hisoblash va olim uchun oʻlchangan eng yuqori Xirsh koʻrsatkichini asos qilib olish taklif etilgan^[12].

Manbalar

↑ Bornmann, Lutz; Daniel, Hans-Dieter (July 2007). "What do we know about the h-index?". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (9): 1381–1385. doi:10.1002/asi.20609.
↑ Suzuki, Helder „Google Scholar Metrics for Publications“. googlescholar.blogspot.com.br (2012).
↑ Jones, T.; Huggett, S.; Kamalski, J. (2011). "Finding a Way Through the Scientific Literature: Indexes and Measures". World Neurosurgery 76 (1–2): 36–38. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2011.01.015. PMID 21839937.
↑ Hirsch, J. E. (15 November 2005). "An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output". PNAS 102 (46): 16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102. PMID 16275915. PMC 1283832. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1283832.
↑ „Impact of Social Sciences – 3: Key Measures of Academic Influence“. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog (Section 3.2). London School of Economics (2010-yil 19-noyabr). 2020-yil 16-iyunda asl nusxadan arxivlangan. Qaraldi: 2020-yil 19-aprel.
↑ Koltun, V; Hafner, D. (2021). "The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation". PLOS ONE 16 (6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253397. PMID 34181681. PMC 8238192. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=8238192. "Our results suggest that the use of the h-index in ranking scientists should be reconsidered, and that fractional allocation measures such as h-frac provide more robust alternatives" Companion webpage
↑ Google Scholar Citations Help, retrieved 2012-09-18.
↑ Bar-Ilan, J. (2007). "Which h-index?: A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar". Scientometrics 74 (2): 257–271. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y.
↑
- Meho, L. I.; Yang, K. (2007). "Impact of Data Sources on Citation Counts and Rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (13): 2105–2125. doi:10.1002/asi.20677.
- Yang, K. (23 December 2006). "A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar". arXiv:cs/0612132. (preprint of paper published as 'Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar', in Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58, No. 13, 2007, 2105–2125)
↑ Meyer, Bertrand; Choppy, Christine; Staunstrup, Jørgen; Van Leeuwen, Jan (2009). "Research Evaluation for Computer Science". Communications of the ACM 52 (4): 31–34. doi:10.1145/1498765.1498780. http://www.informatics-europe.org/docs/research-eval.php. .
↑ Jacsó, Péter (2006). "Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs". Online Information Review 30 (2): 188–193. doi:10.1108/14684520610659201.
↑ Sanderson, Mark (2008). "Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 (7): 1184–1190. doi:10.1002/asi.20771.

Adabiyotlar

Alonso, S.; Cabrerizo, F. J.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. (2009). "h-index: A Review Focused in its Variants, Computation and Standardization for Different Scientific Fields". Journal of Informetrics 3 (4): 273–289. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001. http://eprints.rclis.org/13282/1/hIndexReviewAlonsoCabrerizoHerrera-Viedma.pdf.
Ball, Philip (2005). "Index aims for fair ranking of scientists". Nature 436 (7053): 900. doi:10.1038/436900a. PMID 16107806. https://archive.org/details/sim_nature-uk_2005-08-18_436_7053/page/900.
Iglesias, Juan E.; Pecharromán, Carlos (2007). "Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields". Scientometrics 73 (3): 303–320. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1805-x.
Kelly, C. D.; Jennions, M. D. (2006). "The h index and career assessment by numbers". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21 (4): 167–170. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.005. PMID 16701079.
Lehmann, S.; Jackson, A. D.; Lautrup, B. E. (2006). "Measures for measures". Nature 444 (7122): 1003–1004. doi:10.1038/4441003a. PMID 17183295. https://archive.org/details/sim_nature-uk_december-21-28-2006_444_7122/page/1003.
Panaretos, J.; Malesios, C. (2009). "Assessing Scientific Research Performance and Impact with Single Indices". Scientometrics 81 (3): 635–670. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-2174-9.
Petersen, A. M.; Stanley, H. Eugene; Succi, Sauro (2011). "Statistical Regularities in the Rank-Citation Profile of Scientists". Scientific Reports 181 (181): 1–7. doi:10.1038/srep00181. PMID 22355696. PMC 3240955. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=3240955.
Sidiropoulos, Antonis; Katsaros, Dimitrios; Manolopoulos, Yannis (2007). "Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks". Scientometrics 72 (2): 253–280. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1722-z.
Soler, José M. (2007). "A rational indicator of scientific creativity". Journal of Informetrics 1 (2): 123–130. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.10.004.
Symonds, M. R. et al. (2006). Tregenza, Tom. ed. "Gender differences in publication output: towards an unbiased metric of research performance". PLOS ONE 1 (1). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000127. PMID 17205131. PMC 1762413. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1762413.
Taber, Douglass F. (2005). "Quantifying Publication Impact". Science 309 (5744). doi:10.1126/science.309.5744.2166a. PMID 16195445.
Woeginger, Gerhard J. (2008). "An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch-index". Mathematical Social Sciences 56 (2): 224–232. doi:10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2008.03.001.

Havolalar

Google Scholar Metrics
H-index for computer science and electronics
H-index for economists
H-index for computer science researchers
H - index for computer scientists from Google Scholar
H-index for astronomers
Publication and Citation-based Impact, listing 252 impact measures for one researcher with link to source code

[1] Bornmann, Lutz; Daniel, Hans-Dieter (July 2007). "What do we know about the h-index?". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (9): 1381–1385. doi:10.1002/asi.20609.

[2] Suzuki, Helder „Google Scholar Metrics for Publications“. googlescholar.blogspot.com.br (2012).

[3] Jones, T.; Huggett, S.; Kamalski, J. (2011). "Finding a Way Through the Scientific Literature: Indexes and Measures". World Neurosurgery 76 (1–2): 36–38. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2011.01.015. PMID 21839937.

[Hirsch2005-4] Hirsch, J. E. (15 November 2005). "An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output". PNAS 102 (46): 16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102. PMID 16275915. PMC 1283832. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1283832.

[LSE2010-5] „Impact of Social Sciences – 3: Key Measures of Academic Influence“. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog (Section 3.2). London School of Economics (2010-yil 19-noyabr). 2020-yil 16-iyunda asl nusxadan arxivlangan. Qaraldi: 2020-yil 19-aprel.

[h-frac-6] Koltun, V; Hafner, D. (2021). "The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation". PLOS ONE 16 (6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253397. PMID 34181681. PMC 8238192. //www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=8238192. "Our results suggest that the use of the h-index in ranking scientists should be reconsidered, and that fractional allocation measures such as h-frac provide more robust alternatives" Companion webpage

[7] Google Scholar Citations Help, retrieved 2012-09-18.

[8] Bar-Ilan, J. (2007). "Which h-index?: A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar". Scientometrics 74 (2): 257–271. doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y.

[Meho2007-9] 
Meho, L. I.; Yang, K. (2007). "Impact of Data Sources on Citation Counts and Rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (13): 2105–2125. doi:10.1002/asi.20677.
Yang, K. (23 December 2006). "A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar". arXiv:cs/0612132. (preprint of paper published as 'Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar', in Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58, No. 13, 2007, 2105–2125)

[10] Meho, L. I.; Yang, K. (2007). "Impact of Data Sources on Citation Counts and Rankings of LIS Faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (13): 2105–2125. doi:10.1002/asi.20677.

[11] Yang, K. (23 December 2006). "A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar". arXiv:cs/0612132. (preprint of paper published as 'Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar', in Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58, No. 13, 2007, 2105–2125)

[10] Meyer, Bertrand; Choppy, Christine; Staunstrup, Jørgen; Van Leeuwen, Jan (2009). "Research Evaluation for Computer Science". Communications of the ACM 52 (4): 31–34. doi:10.1145/1498765.1498780. http://www.informatics-europe.org/docs/research-eval.php. .

[11] Jacsó, Péter (2006). "Dubious hit counts and cuckoo's eggs". Online Information Review 30 (2): 188–193. doi:10.1108/14684520610659201.

[12] Sanderson, Mark (2008). "Revisiting h measured on UK LIS and IR academics". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59 (7): 1184–1190. doi:10.1002/asi.20771.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]