Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 83 (2): 229-235, 2010
COMMENTARY
An assessment of the bibliometric indices I and Is of Molina-Montenegro & Gianoli applied
to researchers in ecological sciences in Chile
The interest in measuring the scientific output has led to an increasing number of indices
being proposed. In this commentary I critically examine the indices I and IS proposed by Molina-Montenegro & Gianoli (2010; in
this issue), and the criteria employed by these authors to incorporate or exclude scientists from their database of Chilean researchers
in ecology. I also assess the statistical relationship between the indices of scientific output I, IS and Hirsch’s h, and the primary
variables that compose them. To do that I use correlation and linear regression analyses. Results show that the I index is highly
associated to the number of co-authors, and keeps a high positive and significant correlation with the h index, after adjusting by log10
of the number of alocitations and the number of self-citations. This suggests that the number of co-authors and self-citations are not
important predictors of the differences between h and I. In contrast, the Is index decreases with scientific age, which would be an
undesirable outcome, and a result of dividing the I index by the scientific age. I suggest that inspecting residuals of the regression
between the log10 of the number of alocitations and the scientific age is a simple and straightforward way to assess whether a
scientist should be promoted, hired or awarded.
Key words:
ecology, h index, I
index, Is index, scientific age
