Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2023; 56(01): 068-073
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1760827
Original Article

Evaluation of the i10-Index in Plastic Surgery Research and its Correlation with Altmetric Attention Scores and Traditional Author Bibliometrics: An Evaluation of a Single Journal

Eric Shiah 
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York, United States
,
Adee J. Heiman 
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York, United States
,
Joseph A. Ricci
2   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Although the Hirsch index (H-index) has become one of the most accepted measures of scholarly output, its limitations have led to the proposition of newer alternative metrics. The i10-index, notable for being easy to calculate and free to access, has potential, given its association with the power and ubiquity of Google. This study aims to evaluate the utility of the i10-index for plastic surgery research by examining its relationship with author bibliometrics and article metrics, including the H-index and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS).

Methods Article metrics were extracted from articles published in the highest impact plastic surgery journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, over a 2-year period (2017–2019). Senior author bibliometrics, including i10-index and H5-index, were obtained from Web of Science. Correlation analysis was performed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (rs).

Results A total of 1,668 articles were published and 971 included. Senior author i10-index measurements demonstrated moderate correlation with times emailed (rs = 0.47), and weak correlations with H5-index, total publications, and sum of times cited with and without self-citations. The H5-index correlated very strongly with total publications (rs = 0.91) and sum of times cited (both rs = 0.97), moderately with average citations per item (rs = 0.66) and times emailed (rs = 0.41), and weakly with number of citations by posts, AAS, and times tweeted.

Conclusions Although the i10 strongly correlates with the H5-index, it fails to prove superior to the H5-index in predicting the impact of specific research studies in the field of plastic surgery.

Keywords

i10-Index - H-Index - bibliometrics - altmetrics - altmetric attention score

Prior Presentations

This work was previously presented at 2020 Plastic Surgery The Meeting (Virtual).


Authors' Contributions

E.S. and A.H. contributed to data collection, data analysis and manuscript preparation. J.R. contributed to data analysis, manuscript preparation and project oversight.


Ethical Approval

No human or animal subjects were involved in this study. Ethical approval was not required.




Publication History

Article published online:
02 February 2023

© 2023. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102 (46) 16569-16572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bartneck C, Kokkelmans S. Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics 2011; 87 (01) 85-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel H-D. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2008; 59 (05) 681-685
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yong A. Critique of Hirsch's citation index: a combinatorial Fermi problem. Not Am Math Soc 2014; DOI: 10.1090/noti1164.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Aksnes DW. A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics 2003; 56: 235-246
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Shearman CP, Hamer JD, Grimshaw G, Crow A. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. BMJ 1992; 305 (6864): 1291-1292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sandor A, Modlin IM. A retrospective analysis of 1570 appendiceal carcinoids. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93 (03) 422-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Deans GT, Spence RA. Neoplastic lesions of the appendix. Br J Surg 1995; 82 (03) 299-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009; 302 (10) 1092-1096
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Connor J. Google Scholar Citations Open To All. Accessed August 16, 2020 at: https://scholar.googleblog.com/2011/11/google-scholar-citations-open-to-all.html
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Connor J. Google Scholar Citations. Accessed August 16, 2020 at: https://scholar.googleblog.com/2011/07/google-scholar-citations.html
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Berardi RS. Carcinoid tumors of the colon (exclusive of the rectum): review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum 1972; 15 (05) 383-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shiah E, Heiman AJ, Ricci JA. Analysis of alternative metrics of research impact: a correlation comparison between Altmetric attention scores and traditional bibliometrics among plastic Surgery Research. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (05) 664e-670e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 2018; 126 (05) 1763-1768
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Bornmann L, Mutz R, Hug SE. et al. A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. J Informetrics 2011; 5 (03) 346-359
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Robinson DBT, Hopkins L, Brown C. et al. Relative value of adapted novel bibliometrics in evaluating surgical academic impact and reach. World J Surg 2019; 43 (04) 967-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Svider PF, Pashkova AA, Choudhry Z. et al. Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: an examination of 2429 academic surgeons. Laryngoscope 2013; 123 (04) 884-889
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Schreiber WE, Giustini DM. Measuring scientific impact with the h-index: a primer for pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 2019; 151 (03) 286-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nowak JK, Lubarski K, Kowalik LM, Walkowiak J. H-index in medicine is driven by original research. Croat Med J 2018; 59 (01) 25-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Malesios CC, Psarakis S. Comparison of the h-index for different fields of research using bootstrap methodology. Qual Quant 2014; 48: 521-545
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E. et al. h-Index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J Informetrics 2009; 3: 273-289
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gast KM, Kuzon Jr WM, Waljee JF. Bibliometric indices and academic promotion within plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (05) 838e-844e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Susarla SM, Lopez J, Swanson EW. et al. Are quantitative measures of academic productivity correlated with academic rank in plastic surgery? A national study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (03) 613-621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lopez J, Susarla SM, Swanson EW, Calotta N, Lifchez SD. The association of the H-Index and academic rank among full-time academic hand surgeons affiliated with fellowship programs. J Hand Surg Am 2015; 40 (07) 1434-1441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jiang A, Ginocchio LA, Rosenkrantz AB. Associations between academic rank and advanced bibliometric indices among United States academic radiologists. Acad Radiol 2016; 23 (12) 1568-1572
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rosenkrantz AB, Jiang A. Associations between NIH funding and advanced bibliometric indices among radiological investigators. Acad Radiol 2016; 23 (06) 669-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kozak M, Bornmann L. A new family of cumulative indexes for measuring scientific performance. PLoS One 2012; 7 (10) e47679
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ruan QZ, Chen AD, Cohen JB, Singhal D, Lin SJ, Lee BT. Alternative metrics of scholarly output: the relationship among Altmetric acore, Mendeley reader score, citations, and downloads in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (03) 801-809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Asaad M, Howell SM, Rajesh A, Meaike J, Tran NV. Altmetrics in plastic surgery journals: does it correlate with citation count?. Aesthet Surg J 2020; 40 (11) NP628-NP635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Godwin II JD. Carcinoid tumors. An analysis of 2,837 cases. Cancer 1975; 36 (02) 560-569
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Harzing A-W, Alakangas S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 2016; 106: 787-804
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr 2006; 3: 7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 2008; 74: 257-271
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Harzing A-W, Wal R. Google Scholar as a New Source for Citation Analysis. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 2008; 8: 61-73
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Halevi G, Moed H, Bar-Ilan J. Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation - Review of the Literature. J Informetrics 2017; 11: 823-834
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes. Scientometrics 2018; 115: 1107-1113
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Waltman L, van Eck N. The inconsistency of the h-index. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2012; 63: 406-415
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Barnes C. The h-index debate: an introduction for librarians. J Acad Librariansh 2017; 43: 487-494
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Pawlik TM, Shah S, Eckhauser FE. Carcinoid tumor of the biliary tract: treating a rare cause of bile duct obstruction. Am Surg 2003; 69 (02) 98-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar