[AISWorld] Updated H Index List- minor errors fixed

[Michael Cuellar]

I want to thank Sandeep for publishing this list and giving more publicity to the h-index. The h-index does represent a valuable metric as it considers both contribution and impact in a single measure and thus is an improvement in methodology for evaluating scholars.

However, the field needs to be aware that this list by itself is biased. The h-index is a good omnibus measure of influence, however it is biased in favor of papers that have been out longer than others. There is simply more time to accumulate citations. Also, it doesn’t consider “classic papers” those that gain thousands of citations (e.g. Davis (1989) or Delone and McLean (1992; 2003)) as more important that those that gain the “h” number of citations. It is also biased in favor os scholars who have been longer in the field than others and thus have produced more papers and had more time to gain citations (See Truex, et al (2009) JAIS for a discussion). It also does not consider multi-authored papers. 

That is why in developing the Scholarly Capital Model (Cuellar et al (2016) JAIS) we argued that it is necessary to use multiple h-indices to measure ideational influence. We argue that you should use the h-index, but also you should use the g-index (Egghe, 2006) to consider “classic papers” and the hc-index (Sidiropoulos, et al, 2006) to compensate for the effects of recency. Other indices within the h-family that should be considered are the hI-Norm (see Harzing, Publish or Perish) which takes into consideration multi-authored papers and the hm (Molinari, 2008) which generates a statistic on the average influence per paper. This last is primarily useful for comparing scholars with large publication outputs vs. those with smaller levels of output. 

Another point that should be considered is that the h-indices (ideational influence) are not the sum total of scholarly capital, you must consider such things as the connectedness of the scholar with the rest of the field and venue representation, how widely the scholar has published in the venues of the field. 

----------------------------------------------
Michael Cuellar, PhD, PMP
Georgia Southern University


> On Apr 28, 2017, at 1:33 AM, sandeep suntwal <sandeepsuntwal at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Sorry for inundating your inboxes with the h-index lists.
> 
> Please share your feedback against this version (h-index_mis2017-04_01.pdf)
> of the list.
> 
> Please feel free to reach out to me as per the instructions in the document
> in case of any comments, queries or suggestions.
> 
> Thank you,
> Sandeep
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 9:08 PM, sandeep suntwal <
> sandeepsuntwal at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> My apologies for some minor errors in the previous document. Please
>> consider the updated document (h-index_mis2017-01_4.pdf) for your
>> reference.
>> 
>> Please find attached the updated H-Index list for MIS for 2017.
>> 
>> H-index scores for scholars whose names were present on previous version
>> published on Feb 21 is based on scores from January 2017.
>> 
>> Kindly feel free to reach out to me as per the instructions in the
>> document in case of any comments, queries or suggestions.
>> 
>> Thank You,
>> Sandeep Suntwal
>> AI Lab - Eller College of Management
>> University of Arizona
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> [image: cid:image001.jpg at 01CDC386.B0934D50]
> 
> *Sandeep Suntwal*
> 
> Research Associate
> 
> Artificial Intelligence Lab
> 
> MIS Department
> 
> Eller College of Management
> <image002.jpg><h-index_mis2017-04_01.pdf>_______________________________________________
> AISWorld mailing list
> AISWorld at lists.aisnet.org