Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30127
Comparison of the H-Index of Researchers of Google Scholar and Scopus

Authors: Adian Fatchur Rochim, Abdul Muis, Riri Fitri Sari

Abstract:

H-index has been widely used as a performance indicator of researchers around the world especially in Indonesia. The Government uses Scopus and Google scholar as indexing references in providing recognition and appreciation. However, those two indexing services yield to different H-index values. For that purpose, this paper evaluates the difference of the H-index from those services. Researchers indexed by Webometrics, are used as reference’s data in this paper. Currently, Webometrics only uses H-index from Google Scholar. This paper observed and compared corresponding researchers’ data from Scopus to get their H-index score. Subsequently, some researchers with huge differences in score are observed in more detail on their paper’s publisher. This paper shows that the H-index of researchers in Google Scholar is approximately 2.45 times of their Scopus H-Index. Most difference exists due to the existence of uncertified publishers, which is considered in Google Scholar but not in Scopus.

Keywords: Google Scholar, H-index, Scopus.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1315565

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1121

References:

J. R. Lacasse, D. R. Hodge, and K. F. Bean, “Evaluating the Productivity of Social Work Scholars Using the h-Index,” Res. Soc. Work Pract., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 599–607, 2011.
[2] G. Mester, “Rankings Scientists, Journals and Countries using h-Index,” Interdiscip. Descr. Complex Syst., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2016.
[3] I. Díaz, M. Cortey, À. Olvera, and J. Segalés, “Use of H-Index and other bibliometric indicators to evaluate research productivity outcome on swine diseases,” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1–21, 2016.
[4] Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia “Science and Technology Index,” website, 2017. (Online). Available: http://sinta2.ristekdikti.go.id/about.
[5] I. F. Aguillo, “Highly Cited Researchers (h>100) according to their Google Scholar Citations public profiles,” CSIC, Madrid, Spain, 2017. (Online). Available: http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/58. (Accessed: 01-Sep-2017).
[6] Scopus, “Content - Scopus - Solutions | Elsevier,” Scopus, 2017. (Online). Available: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content. (Accessed: 14-May-2017).
[7] E. Orduña-Malea and E. Delgado López-Cózar, “Google Scholar Metrics evolution: an analysis according to languages,” Scientometrics, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 2353–2367, 2014.
[8] J. Mingers and L. Leydesdorff, “A review of theory and practice in scientometrics,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 246, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2015.
[9] A. Harzing, “A Google Scholar H-Index for Journals : An Alternative Metric to Measure Journal Impact in Economics & Business,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 60, pp. 41–46, 2009.
[10] B. Minasny, A. E. Hartemink, A. McBratney, and H.-J. Jang, “Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar.,” PeerJ, vol. 1, no. 1955, p. e183, 2013.
[11] J. Bar-Ilan, “Citations to the ‘Introduction to informetrics’ indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar,” Scientometrics, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 495–506, 2010.
[12] “What is webometrics? | Radek Malinský.” (Online). Available: http://malinsky.eu/blog/what-is-webometrics/. (Accessed: 14-Sep-2015).
[13] S. M. Ross, “Peirce’s criterion for the elimination of suspect experimental data,” J. Eng. Technol., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2003.
[14] L. Lin and P. D. Sherman, “Cleaning Data the Chauvenet Way,” SESUG 2007 Proc. SouthEast SAS Users Gr., no. c, pp. 1–11, 2007.