Open Access
Research Article
80/20 law in Information Production Processes (IPPs)
*Hiran Haridas LathabaiCorresponding authorhiranhl007@gmail.com; hiranhl@am.amrita.eduAmrita Center for Research in Analytics, Education and Training Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham Amritapuri CampusKollam, Kerala, 690525, India0000-0002-5633-9842View full profile → , Solanki Guptasolankigupta2@gmail.comSchool of Computer Science Engineering and Technology Bennett UniversityGreater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, 201310, IndiaView full profile → , Rakhi Mohanrakhiammalu@gmail.comDepartment of Statistics Government College AttingalThiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 695101, IndiaView full profile → , Vivek Kumar Singhvivekks12@gmail.comDepartment of Computer Science University of Delhi; NITI AYOG Government of IndiaDepartment of Computer Science University of DelhiDelhi, 110007, IndiaView full profile →
* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details
- Published Online:
- 01 Dec 2025
- Article type:
- Research Article
- Language:
- EN
- Article no.:
- CJSIM-2025-01003
- Pages:
- 197–214
Abstract
Information Production Processes (IPPs) like source-item systems possess several properties. Skewness is one property that makes indicators such as h-type indicators relevant for determining key sources that produced the majority of items. Due to this skewness, the 80/20 rule (in which the top 80 percent of items may be produced by the top 20 percent of the sources) also is at play in IPPs. In this work, we investigate whether any of the major existing h-type indicators are capable of reflecting the 80/20 rule effectively. Also, can considering 20% of T (total publications) or 0.2T as an indicator, provide a better alternative? Or is there a room for new indicator or perhaps a new law? These questions are answered in this work. The implications and potential uses of the most suitable base indicator for scientometric applications, especially for science, technology and innovation (STI) management and for applications outside the realm of scientometrics are discussed.
Keywords
References
[1] V. Pareto, “Coursd’économie politique: Professé à l’Universi”, té de Lausanne, vol. 1 (1926).[2] L. Egghe, “The power of power laws and an interpretation of Lotkaian informetric systems as self-similar fractals,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 669–675 (2005), doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20158. [3] “The Informetric Laws”. In R. Rousseau, L. Egghe, and R. Guns (Eds.), Becoming metric-wise, pp. 293-313 (2018).[4] Q.L. Burrell. “The 80/20 rule: Library lore or statistical law?”. Journal of Documentation, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 24-39 (1985).[5] L. Egghe. “On the 80/20 rule”. Scientometrics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 55-68 (1986).[6] L. Egghe, “Pratt’s measure for some bibliometric distributions and its relation with the 80/20 rule”. Journal of the American Society for information Science, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 288-297 (1987).[7] L. Egghe. “An exact calculation of Price’s law for the law of Lotka”. Scientometrics, vol. 11, no. 1-2, pp. 81-97 (1987).[8] J. E. Hirsch, “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 102, no. 46, pp. 16569–16572 (Nov. 2005), doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102. [9] L. Egghe and R. Rousseau, “An informetric model for the Hirsch-index,” Scientometrics, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 121–129 (Oct. 2006), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0143-8. [10] M. Kosmulski, “A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index”. ISSI newsletter, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 4-6 (2006).[11] L. Egghe, “An improvement of the h-index: the g-index,” vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 8–9 (Jan. 2006). [12] L. Egghe, “Theory and practise of the g-index,” Scientometrics, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 131–152 (Oct. 2006), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7.[13] R. S. J. Tol, “The h-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists,” Scientometrics, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 317–324 (Apr. 2009), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2079-7.[14] H. H. Lathabai, “ψ-index: A new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 101096 (Nov. 2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101096. [15] F. L. da Silva, L. C. Brandão, and J. C. C. B. Soares de Mello, “Stability Discussions on some h-type Indexes,” Journal of Scientometric Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 9–17 (May 2021), doi: https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.10.1.2. [16] L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, and H.-D. Daniel, “The h index research output measurement: Two approaches to enhance its accuracy,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 407–414 (Jul. 2010), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.005. [17] W. Glänzel, “On the opportunities and limitations of the H-index”, Science focus, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 10-11 (2006).[18] W. Glänzel and H. F. Moed, “Opinion paper: thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators,” Scientometrics, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 381–394 (Nov. 2012), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z. [19] L. Leydesdorff, L. Bornmann, and T. Opthof, “hα: the scientist as chimpanzee or bonobo,” Scientometrics, vol. 118, no. 3, pp. 1163–1166 (Jan. 2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03004-3. [20] X. Hu, R. Rousseau, and J. Chen, “In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices,” Journal of information science, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 73–85 (Nov. 2009), doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551509348133. [21] M. Schreiber, “A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 211–216 (Jul. 2008), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001. [22] S. Alonso, F. J. Cabrerizo, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera, “h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields,” Journal of Informetrics, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 273–289 (Oct. 2009), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001. [23] N. J. Van Eck, and L. Waltman, “Generalizing the h-and g-indices”, Journal of Informetrics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 263-271 (2008).[24] L. Bornmann and L. Leydesdorff, “Count highly-cited papers instead of papers with h citations: use normalized citation counts and compare ‘like with like’!,” Scientometrics, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 1119–1123 (Mar. 2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2682-1.[25] L. Waltman, and N. J. Van Eck, “The inconsistency of the h-index”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 406-415 (2012). [26] J. E. Hirsch, “hα: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific leadership,” Scientometrics, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 673–686 (Jan. 2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2994-1. [27] D. J. Urquhart, “Urquharts Law”, Journal of Documentation, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 149-149 (1977).[28] E. Garfield, “The mystery of the transposed journal lists—wherein Bradford’s Law of Scattering is generalized according to Garfield’s Law of Concentration”. Essays of an information scientist, vol. 1, pp. 222-223 (Aug, 1971).[29] S. J. Bensman, “Urquhart’s and Garfield’s Laws: The British controversy over their validity,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 714–724 (2001), doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1122. [30] “Statistics”. In R. Rousseau, L. Egghe, and R. Guns (Eds.), Becoming metric-wise, pp. 67-97 (2018). [31] S. X. Wei, T. Tong, R. Rousseau, W. Wang, and Y. Y. Fred, “Relations among the h-, g-, ψ-, and p-index and offset-ability”. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 101340 (2022).[32] G. Prathap, “Is there a place for a mock h-index?,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 153–165 (Jun. 2009), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0066-2. [33] G. Prathap, “The 100 most prolific economists using the p-index,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 167–172 (Jun. 2009), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0068-0. [34] H. H. Lathabai, A. Nandy, and V. K. Singh, “x-index: Identifying core competency and thematic research strengths of institutions using an NLP and network based ranking framework,” Scientometrics, vol. 126, no. 12, pp. 9557–9583 (Nov. 2021), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04188-3. [35] H. H. Lathabai, H. H., A. Nandy, and V. K. Singh, “Expertise-based institutional collaboration recommendation in different thematic areas”, In proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval co-located with 43rd European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR 2021), pp. 45-52 (2021).[36] H. H. Lathabai, A. Nandy, and V. K. Singh, “Institutional collaboration recommendation: An expertise-based framework using NLP and network analysis,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 209, p. 118317 (Dec. 2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118317. [37] A. Nandy, H. H. Lathabai, and V. K. Singh, “xd-index and its variants: a set of overall scholarly expertise diversity indices for the research portfolio management of institutions”, Scientometrics, vol. 129, pp. 5937–5962 (2024).[38] A. Nandy, H. H. Lathabai, and V. K. Singh, “xd-index: an overall scholarly expertise index for the research portfolio management of institutions”. In proceedings of 19th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics Bloomington, IN, USA, pp. 473-488 (2023).[39] A. Korn, A. Schubert, and A. Telcs, “Lobby index in networks,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 388, no. 11, pp. 2221–2226 (Jun. 2009), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2009.02.013. [40] M. G. Campiteli, A. J. Holanda, L. D. H. Soares, P. R. C. Soles, and O. Kinouchi, “Lobby index as a network centrality measure,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 392, no. 21, pp. 5511–5515 (Nov. 2013), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2013.06.065. [41] S. George, H. H. Lathabai, T. Prabhakaran, and M. Changat, “Towards stock recommendation and portfolio management systems using network analysis,” in Transactions on computational science and computational intelligence, pp. 203–215 (2021).
Views: 126Downloads: 15Citations: 0
