Research on Improved Z-indexes Based on the Co-author Contribution Division Value

Abstract

Abstract: In order to make up for the deficiency of z-index which cannot distinguish the contribution rate of co-authors, this paper proposes three improved z-indexesso as to improve the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of using z-index to evaluate the academic influence of researchers. This paper introduced the signature sequenceinto z-index.By taking 20 leading researchers in the field of muscular dystrophy as an example, the effectiveness of zhc-index, zgc-index and zac-index was analyzed by descriptive statistics, ranking of scholars, correlation and typical analysis. The conclusion is that zhc-index, zgc-index and zac-index all reflect the contributions of co-authors. But the zgc-index is more favorable to the contribution of authors of the highest authorshipand to cases where there were fewer than 10 co-authors.The zac-index is friendly to the contributions of authors of a relatively lower authorship and to cases with a relatively bigger number of authors. The zhc-index in contrast is sensitive to author ranking of authors whose amount of papers citations are different. And all three indexes can help to curb the phenomenon of academic “nominal name” and “nominal name each other” in different degrees.

He Xiaoqing ( School of Public Administration of Sichuan University, Library of Sichuan University). Research on Improved Z-indexes Based on the Co-author Contribution Division Value[J]. Libraly Journal, 2023, 42(383): 35-43.

References

[ 1 ] 唐璞妮.基于引文分布与作者合著的学者p指数改进研究[J].情报理论与实践，2020，43（5）：99—103.
[ 2 ] Gangan Prathap. A Three-Class，Three-Dimensional Bibliometric Performance Indicator[J]. Journal Of The Association For Information Science And Technology，2014，65（7）：1506—1508.
[ 3 ] Gangan Prathap. Letter to the Editor：Measures for Bibliometric Size，Impact，and Concentration[J].Journal Of The Association For Information Science And Technology，2015，66（8）：1740—1741.
[ 4 ] Gangan Prathap. The Zynergy-Index and the Formula for the h-Index[J]. Journal Of The Association For Information Science And Technology，2014，65（2）：426—427.
[ 5 ] Gangan Prathap. A three-dimensional bibliometric evaluation of research in polymer solar cells[J].Scientometrics，2014，101：889—898.
[ 6 ] Gangan Prathap. A three-dimensional bibliometric evaluation of recent research in India[J].Scientometrics，2017，110：1085—1097.
[ 7 ] 何晓庆，王圣洁，胡琳. z指数在学者学术影响力评价中的应用[J].情报理论与实践，2018，41（5）：50—54.
[ 8 ] 何晓庆，王圣洁，胡琳. z指数在期刊评价实践中的应用研究[J].中国科技期刊研究，2018，29（5）：509—514.
[ 9 ] 沈军威，郑德俊，张正慧，等. z指数用于中文社科学术期刊评价的实证研究——基于3个学科CSSCI来源期刊的样本分析[J].中国科技期刊研究，2019，30（10）：1113—1121.
[10] 何晓庆，王圣洁，胡琳.基于z指数的科研机构评价的有效性实证研究[J].现代情报，2018，38（5）：82—86.
[11] 张学梅.基于代表作制度的z指数学者评价方法改进研究[J].图书馆研究与工作，2020（1）：22—28.
[12] 俞立平，王作功. z指数评价学术期刊的适用性及其改进研究[J].情报学报，2018，37（11）：1132—1139.
[13] 李长玲，牌艳欣，相富钟，等.改进z指数的高被引学科研究热点识别方法探讨[J].情报理论与实践，2020，43（6）：69—75;96.
[14] 刘运梅，李长玲，刘小慧.基于合著作者贡献大小分配权值的p指数探讨[J].图书情报工作，2016，60（21）：81—86.
[15] Hagen N T. Harmonic allocation of authorship credit：Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis[J].Plos One，2008，3（12）：e4021．
[16] 丁敬达，王新明.基于作者贡献声明的合著者贡献率测度方法[J].图书情报工作，2019，63（16）：95—102.
[17] 樊向伟，肖仙桃.论文合著者贡献分配算法研究进展及比较分析[J].图书情报工作，2015，59（10）：116—123.
[18] 杨文霞，刘文云，刘建，等.基于引文分布、时间与作者合著的作者评价p指数改进[J].情报杂志，2020，39（11）：201—207;200.
[19] 王贤文.从特殊到一般的科学计量学方法——《H型指数和H型测度研究》书评[J].图书馆杂志，2021，357（1）：104—106.
[20] 戚尔鹏，叶鹰.发文—引文分布中h指数和e指数的比率模型及其理论分析[J].图书馆杂志，2017，36（5）：62—71.