SAM HIGGINBOTTOM UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, TECHNOLOGY

AND SCIENCES PRAYAGRAJ, UP -211007

SUBJECT- LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICES
COURSE CODE- MLI-501
PRESENTATION ON IMPACT FACTORS, H INDEX, G INDEX, I 10 INDEX

SUBMITTED BY,
SHRIJEET SINGH
ID NO:- 22MSAPP039
 CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION
2. INDEXING
3. HOW TO USE THE INDEX
4. H-INDEX
5. G-INDEX
6. I 10-INDEX
7. CONCLUSION
8. REFERENCE
 INTRODUCTION
• The impact factor (IF) is frequently used as an indicator of the importance of a
journal to its field. It was first introduced by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the
Institute for Scientific Information. The impact factor was devised by Eugene
Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in
Philadelphia. Impact factors began to be calculated yearly starting from 1975 for
journals listed in the journal citation Reports (JCR).
• At the simplest level, journal impact factors give the average number of citations to
articles in a particular journal; essentially, the average number of times that articles
in a journal are referenced by other articles. Impact factors were conceptualized by
Eugene Garfield and Irving H Sher in the 1960s as an aid to evaluating journals for
inclusion in Current Contents and the Science Citation Index® 1, 2. An average
citation measure was needed to account for the effects of the size and age of a
journal on the total number of citations it receives. Older and larger journals will
generally receive more citations because they have larger bodies of previously
published articles available to be cited.
• Calculating an impact factor requires a denominator (the total number of articles
published) and a numerator (the total number of citations to those articles). A time
period, or ‘window,’ needs to be defined for both of these variables. The publication
window is the period during which the articles included in the calculation were
published. The citation window is the period during which citations to these articles
were counted.
• Impact factor is commonly used to evaluate the relative importance of a journal
within its field and to measure the frequency with which the “average article” in a
journal has been cited in a particular time period. Journal which publishes more
review articles will get highest IFs. Journals with higher IFs believed to be more
important than those with lower ones. According to Eugene Garfield “impact simply
reflects the ability of the journals and editors to attract the best paper available.”
• The journal with the highest IF is the one that published the most commonly cited
articles over a 2-year period. The IF applies only to journals, not to individual
articles or individual scientists unlike the “H-index.” The relative number of
citations an individual article receives is better evaluated as “citation impact.”
Actual Calculation of impact factor in 2013
Cites in 2009 to articles published in:
2012 = 456
2011 = 468
Total = 924
Number of articles published in:
2012 = 80
2011 = 74
Total = 154
Impact factor = cites to recent articles/number of recent articles = 924/154=6.0 B)
Factors that bias the calculation of the impact factor
The ready accessibility of the IF and the lack of other well-known quality indicators have
rapidly contributed to the attribution of IF as an indicator of journal quality. However, it
is important to remember that the calculation of the IF is biased by many factors. These
include:
• Coverage and language preference of the SCI database
• Procedures used to collect citations at the ISI
• Algorithm used to calculate the IF
• Citation distribution of journals
• Online availability of publications
• Citations to invalid articles
• Negative citations
• Preference of journal publishers for articles of a certain type
• Publication lag

What question does the impact factor answer?

Strictly speaking, the journal IF only measures the average citation rate of all the
"citable" articles (research articles, technical notes and reviews) in a journal. As such, IF
is not a perfect tool to measure the journal quality. However, in most cases, it performs
what it promises when various flaws are taken into active consideration. Ready
accessibility and regular updates of the ISI IF provides the best available indicator for
journal quality, accepted widely within the scientific community. Journals with the
highest IF in each discipline are usually the most prestigious ones . It can be considered
as a general guideline that helps librarians determine which journals to purchase, helps
authors to decide which journal to submit their work to, helps editors and publishers to
assess their journals, and helps the funding agencies to shortlist applicants.
What questions does the impact factor not answer?

The IF cannot assess the quality of individual articles, due to the qualitative variety of
citations distributed in a journal
A small proportion of articles count for a large percentage of citations. This means that
a typical article in a high IF journal may not be cited more frequently than an average
article in a relative low IF journal. As a result, IF alone is not able to judge the
individual article's or author's performance.
Even under the assumption that citations were equally distributed among all articles, the
IF would only measure the interests of other researchers in an article, but not the
article's importance and usefulness. The Guide to Clinical Preventive Services by the
US Preventive Services Task Forces (USPSTF) is generally thought to be an example of
top-level scientific evidence, the best available knowledge source. Nakayama et al.
showed that articles from "low impact factor" journals were also cited frequently in this
guide, demonstrating the usefulness of those articles in providing clinical evidence.
Subject variation in impact factors

The average number of citations to articles during the two years after publication varies
considerably across different subject fields. This leads to impact factors of very
different magnitudes between fields, as illustrated in Figure 1. The impact factors
plotted here are calculated by counting the number of citations in the current year to
articles published by all journals in the category in the two previous years then dividing
this by the total number of these articles. Thus, these figures represent the average
number of times an article in the field has been cited: the impact factor of the entire
category.

Consequences of subject variations in impact factors

The high variation in average impact across different subject areas means that impact
factors cannot be used to compare journals from different subject areas. This is why the
journals covered by the JCR are classified into fairly narrow subject categories.
It is only at this level that journals should be ranked according to their impact factors.
Even within the JCR subject categories some journals will have a subject advantage
over others, for example, where a subject category contains both basic research and
applied journals – practice-based and educational journals often have particularly low
impact factors compared to the basic research journals listed in the same categories.
There can also be a subject advantage in categories which are multidisciplinary by
nature, for example, social science journals such as the Journal of Sports Management
and Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in the sports sciences categories tend to rank
lower than the majority of the sports medicine titles in the same category. All these
factors need to be considered when comparing journal rankings within a subject
category. Subject variation in impact factors is also one of the reasons it is unwise to
create an ‘average impact factor’ for a publisher’s entire list of journals. Now that many
publishers offer ‘bulk sales deals’ it can be tempting to try and gauge the quality of
such an offering by creating an average impact factor for the journals included in the
deal.
Evaluation of journal quality
How should the quality of a journal and scientific articles be measured? Citation analysis
and ranking by impact is the best method I know which should then be combined, if
possible, with informed peer evaluation. The latter however is very expensive. Decades ago
it was found that the NRC of the USA conducted multimillion dollar surveys of the best
departments in each specialty. Invariably the results did not differ significantly from the
much less expensive citation evaluation.
Time lapse for calculating the impact factor
Why is the impact factor based on two-year citations? Why not use longer periods of time?
The two year period was chosen because in the fields that were of greatest interest to the
readers of Current Contents, and later of the SCI, 25% of citations were accounted for in
the year of publication plus the two previous years. The primary fields of interest were
molecular biology and biochemistry. However, even for fields for which only 15% of
citations are included the ranking that results from the impact factor may not change much.
We also did not want to wait that many years to see how new journals were being cited.
However, nothing prevents the user of JCR from calculating three year or five year impact
factors. I have done even seven year and 15 year calculations.
TIMEA LAPSE IMPACT FACTOR TREND
 INDEXING:
Indexing is filed papers are located easily and quickly whenever they are needed.
Indexing thus adds to the efficiency of the filing method. It ensures speed and
consequently economy results due to increased speed. The objective of indexing is
best achieved where the right type of indexing system is chosen. Where files are
arranged in geographical-cum-alphabetical or only alphabetical order, an index is not
needed. However, in other systems of classification, it becomes essential to provide
an index for customers, suppliers, credit ratings telephone numbers and soon. Index is
also required for different kinds of registers and ledgers.

 Purpose of Indexing:
 Indexing is regarded as the process of describing and identifying documents in
terms of their subject contents. Here, The concepts are extracted from documents
by the process of analysis, and then transcribed into the elements of the indexing
systems, such as thesauri, classification schemes, etc.
 In indexing decisions, concepts are recorded as data elements organised into easily
accessible forms for retrieval.
 classification symbols, etc. The main purposes of prescribing standard rules and
procedures for subject indexing may be stated as follows:
 To prescribe a standard methodology to subject cataloguers and indexers for
constructing subject headings.
 To be helpful to users in accessing any desired document(s) from the catalogue or
index through different means of such approach.
 To decide on the optimum number of subject entries, and thus economise the bulk
and cost of cataloguing indexing.

Problems in Indexing:
A number of problems and issues are associated with indexing which are enumerated
below:
a) Complexities in the subjects of documents—usually multi-word concept;
b) Multidimensional users need for information;
c) Choice of terms from several synonyms;
d) Choice of word forms (Singular / Plural form);
e) Distinguishing homographs;
f) Identifying term relationships — Syntactic and Semantic;
g) Depth of indexing (exhaustivity);
h) Levels of generality and specificity for representation of concepts (specificity);
i) Ensuring consistency in indexing between several indexers (inter-indexer
consistency), and by the same indexer at different times (intra-indexer consistency);
j) Ensuring that indexing is done not merely on the basis of a document’s intrinsic
subject content but also according to the type of users who may be benefited from it and
the types of requests for which the document is likely to be regarded as useful;
k) The kind of vocabulary to be used, and syntactical and other rules necessary for
representing complex subjects; and
l) Problem of how to use the ‘index assignment data’.
Essentials of a Good system of Indexing:
In order to achieve its objectives, a good system of indexing should have the
following essential features;
1. It should be simple.
2. It should be economical in operation.
3. It should allow for speed.
4. It should go well with the system of filing in the organization.
5. It should be flexible to allow for expansion when needed.

Advantages of a Good System of Indexing:

A good system of indexing, i.e., which goes well with the filing methods in the
organization, offers the following benefits in the field of records.
Selection of a Suitable Indexing System:
Every system of indexing has its own merits and demerits. Some methods are rigid
while others are flexible through expensive. The installation of a suitable indexing
system depends mainly on the following factors.
1. The type and extent of information needed.
2. The cost of equipment in each system.
3. The cost of labor in each system.
4. The space required for each system.
5. The frequency of adding or deleting.
6. The purpose of using an index.
CDC’s Index goes beyond checklists and readability formulas by:
1. Focusing on the most important research-based items that enhance clarity and aid
understanding.
2. Providing a numerical score so that you can objectively assess and improve
materials based on the best available science.

HOW TO USE THE INDEX:

The Index is designed to help you communicate clearly with your intended
audience(s). You can use the Index in several ways:
 To inform the design and development of a new communication product.
 To assess the clarity of a communication product prior to public release.
 To encourage discussion and collaboration between writers and reviewers before or
during the clearance process as you work to attain scientific accuracy and clarity of
content.
 To quickly assess the clarity and ease of use of an already released communication
product.
 The H-index
The h-index is short for the Hirsch index, which was introduced by Jorge E. Hirsch
(2005) as a way to quantify the productivity and impact of an individual author.
Similar to how the IF is now be used to measure a journal or an author to their
scientific field, the h-index has become another measure of relative impact of scientific
publications. While the IF is derived from the quotient of total citations and total
papers in a two-year span, the h-index is simply a count of the largest number of
papers (h) from a journal or author that have at least (h) number of citations.
The H-index is an index that attempts to measure both the scientific productivity and
the apparent scientific impact of the scientists. The index is based on the set of
scientists most cited papers and the number of citations that they have receive in others
people’s publications. The index can also be applied to the productivity and impact of
a group of scientists.
b. According to Wapedia the H-index “is an index that attempts to measure both the
scientific productivity and the apparent scientific impact of a scientist”
c. According to Hirsch, “A scientist has index ‘h’ if ‘h’ of his/her Np papers have at
least h citations each and the other (Np-h) papers have no more than h citations each”.
For example, Webology has an h-index of 21 based on Google Scholar which indicates
that the journal has published 21 papers with at least 21 citations

Database H-index

google Scholar 21

Scopus 9

Objectives
 The objective of this paper is to analyse the relationship of the h-index with other
bibliometric indicators at the micro level in order to identify some of its advantages
and limitations.
 Differences between h-index and several traditional indicators in their ability to
assess research performance of scientists are given special attention.
 Our hypothesis is that h-index is heavily influenced by the absolute number of
documents and citations and that it fails to identify those researchers who are very
selective when choosing journals and who have intermediate levels of production but
with a high international impact.
Relationship between h-index and other activity and impact indicators
The relationship between h-index and the other indicators has been studied through
factor analysis. All the authors (337 authors) were considered. Four factors were
obtained which accounted for 93 percent of the explained variance. The contribution of
the variables to the different factors is shown in Table 3. The first factor is associated
with the number of documents, number of citations and h-index. The second factor has
high loadings for RCR related variables, while the third one groups the number of
citations per document and the HCP value.

Validity of the H-index

Since the h-index is size-dependent, it could underestimate the accomplishment of
“selective researchers”. A theoretical example of the h-index be in the case of the
scientists with 10 documents cited 10 times each would have an h-index of 10,
Scientists with 5 documents which are cited 200 times would have an h-index of 5.
Scientists who publishes few documents, but their impact is much higher and Scientists
who publishes more documents, but with a lower impact factor.
Advantages of H-index
 It combines a measure of quantity (publication) and impact (citations).
 It allows us to characterize the scientific output of a researcher with objectivity and
therefore may play an important role when making decisions about promotions,
fund allocations and awarding prizes.
 It performs better than other single number criteria commonly used to evaluate the
scientific output of a researcher (impact factor, total number of documents, total
number of citations per paper rate and number of highly cited papers).
 The H-index can be easily obtained by anyone with access of science and in
addition it is easy to understand.

Disadvantages of H-index
 There are inter-field differences in typical ‘h’ values due to differences among
fields in productivity and citation practices, so the hindex should not be used to
compare scientists from different disciplines.
 The h-index depends on the duration of each scientist’s career because the pool of
publication and citation increases over time. www.IndianJournals.com Members
Copy, Not for Commercial Sale Downloaded From IP - 14.139.155.98 on dated
17-Jan-2014 Vol. 3, No. 4, October - December - 2009 4 The Concept of H-Index
 Highly cited papers are important for the determination of the h-index, but once
they are selected it belongs to top h papers, it is unimportant that numbers of
citations they receive. This is the disadvantage of h-index
 G-index
The g-index has been introduced by my colleague Leo Egghe (2006a,b,d). It is
calculated as follows: one draws the same list as for the h-index, but now the g-index is
the highest rank such that the cumulative sum of the number of citations received is
larger than or equal to the square of this rank. Clearly h ≤ g. The g-index too can be
calculated as a real number. It is then defined as the abscissa of the intersection of the
curves y = x² and y = C(x), where C(x) is the function connecting the points C(r) = = ∑
1 ( ) r k P k . Similar to the notation hr, this index is denoted as gr.
The g-index gives more weight to highly-cited articles. To calculate the g-index:
"[Given a set of articles] ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations that they
received, the g-index is the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received
(together) at least g² citations.
The g-index is an alternative for the older h-index. The h-index does not average the
number of citations. Instead, the h-index only requires a minimum of n citations for the
least-cited article in the set and thus ignores the citation count of very highly cited
papers.
Roughly, the effect is that h is the number of papers of a quality threshold that rises
as h rises; g allows citations from higher-cited papers to be used to bolster lower-
cited papers in meeting this threshold. In effect, the g-index is the maximum
reachable value of the h-index if a fixed number of citations can be distributed freely
over a fixed number of papers.

Objective-
 To quantify the levels of accuracy for the h and g indexes for evaluating research
performance at the level of the research organizations .
 To obtain practical information on whether the g-index represents any true
improvement over the h-index in measuring such performance.
 Our main objective is to analyse g-index as compared with h-index and with
other
 More traditional bibliometric indicators in their ability to discriminate among
different
 Types of scientists. Moreover, we determine whether the
g-index is more sensitive than
 h-index in the assessment of scientists with a selective
publication strategy (scientists with intermediate
productivity but a high impact). Our hypothesis is that the
g-index
 Might suit selective scientists better, since: a) the latter
usually have a high percentage
 of Highly Cited Papers, which are considered in the
calculation of the g-index, and b)
 The value of the g-index is not limited by the total number
of documents.
Advantages
• Accounts for the performance of author's top articles. Helps to make more apparent
the difference between authors' respective impacts.
• The inflated vales of the g-index help to give credit to lowly-cited or non-cited
papers while giving credit for highly cited papers.
• Index is very simple and similar to the h-index, and attempts to address its
shortcomings.
• Its aim to improve h –index by giving more weight to highly cited articles.
 I 10-index
The i10-index is the newest in the line of journal metrics and was introduced by
Google Scholar in 2011. It is a simple and straightforward indexing measure found by
tallying a journal’s total number of published papers with at least 10 citations .
The i10-index is the newest in the line of journal metrics and was introduced by
Google Scholar, the online academic branch of the search engine company Google in
2011. It is a simple and straightforward indexing measure found by tallying a
journal’s total number of published articles with at least 10 citations.
if the author/researcher has an i-10 index of 25 or more, it is considered an excellent
research profile. An i-10 index of 25 means that, out of total publications, the
researcher has received at least 10 citations for every 25 published articles.
let's explain with an example. In this above table, you can see the author has
published 10 papers, and out of these 10 papers, only the first 7 papers have 10 or
more citations. Hence, the author has an i10-index of 7, and it's very simple to
calculate. You only count the 10 citations of your paper published.
i 10 index= the number of publications with at least 10 citations.
Advantages of i10-Index
 My Citations in Google Scholar is free and easy to use
 Very simple and straightforward to calculate.
 To help gauge the productivity of a scholar.

Disadvantages
• It does not count number of publication or number of total citations of an
author.
• It does not identify single author papers ,annual research contribution of an
author.
• Used only in google scholar
 CONCLUSION
Both quantity and impact of publications are taken into account when calculating the
h-index , but the number of publication plays important role, since it is maximum –
index an author can obtain. The use of h index as a single indicator for the assessment
of the scientific carrer of a research is not adequate. The need to use diverse indicators
for that different aspect of research . The g-index presents two important
improvements as compared to h-index: first, the weighting of the citations received by
the documents is considered in the g-index calculation; and secondly, the g-index for a
given scientist is not limited by his/her total number of publications. According to
these features, g-index might be more adequate than h-index for assessing selective
scientists, who are less likely to obtain high values of h-index . However, our study
shows that the g-index is more sensitive than h-index for the assessment of selective
scientists, as suggested by the significant differences found in the position occupied by
selective scientists in the h-index and g-index ranks, as well as by the higher
g-index/h-index ratio observed for selective scientists.
Our results suggest that big producers are favoured by h-index while selective
scientists obtain better positions by means of the g-index. Therefore we consider
that the g-index is better suited for the assessment of selective researchers than the
h-index.
Considering the whole population of Natural Resources scientists, a strong positive
correlation between g- and h-index was observed; moreover both indicators have a
good correlation with the total number of citations and the total number of
documents. It is interesting to note that g-index shows a better correlation than the
h-index with the number of citations per document and with the HCP rate,
supporting the idea of the better sensitivity of g-index for the assessment of
selective scientists, since the latter tend to present high scores in the two mentioned
indicators. Although the g-index presents some advantages as compared with the h-
index, several limitations remain. That is the case of the problems related to the
difficult collection of all the citations and documents of scientists; the existence of
different .
 REFERENCE
Elsevier B.V. (2016). Scopus Journal Metrics - Webology. Retrieved June 20, 2016,
from http://www.scopus.com/source/sourceInfo.uri?
sourceID=4400151723&origin=resultlist , www.journalmetrics.com
Garfield, E. (1964). Science Citation Index: A new dimension in indexing. Science,
144(3619), 649- 54.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science,
178(4060), 471-9.
BALL, P. (2005), Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature, 436 : 900.
BRAUN, T., GLÄNZEL, W., SCHUBERT, A. (2005), A Hirsch-type index for
journals. The Scientist, 19 (22) : 8. EGGHE, L. (2005), Power Laws in the
Information Production Process: Lotkaian Informetrics. Elsevier, Oxford (UK).
Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D. (2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists
really work? Scientometrics, 65, 391-392. Braun T., Glänzel, W. ,& Schubert A., &
(2005). A Hirsch-type index for journals. The Scientist, 19(22), p.8.
THANK YOU.
A LIBRARY IS THE DELIVERY ROOM
FOR THE BIRTH OF IDEAS. A PLACE
WHERE HISTORY COMES
TO LIFE