Assessment of YouTube Videos on H Index
Authors
-
Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Lal Pur, Amarkantak - 484886, Madhya Pradesh
Mohit Garg
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2019/v56i1/137997Keywords:
H-index, Information Quality, Videos, YouTubeAbstract
H index is a popular measure. YouTube provides free of cost video content on different topics. Anyone can upload the videos on YouTube after setting up an account without any verification by experts. Large numbers of videos have been uploaded on YouTube which may or may not be relevant. This study is aimed at evaluating the usefulness of YouTube videos on h-index. YouTube (www.youtube.com) was searched with the search term “h index” on 18th August 2018. The search results were filtered by video type. The first 20 videos were selected for assessment, but after screening the four non-English videos were excluded. These videos have been watched and evaluated based on six aspects. The study found that no video covered all six aspects. 25% of the screened videos were found very useful, 38% of the videos were found slightly useful, 31% of the videos were found moderately useful and only 1 video was found not useful. It was also found that majority of the videos covered definition and example and very few videos discussed advantages of h-index.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Abdelmseih, M. (2016). Evaluation and reliability of YouTube videos for Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) - A warning sign! Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 07(05). https://doi.org/10.4172/21559570.1000595.
Abukaraky, A., Hamdan, A., Ameera, M., Nasief, M. and Hassona, Y. (2018). Quality of YouTube TM videos on dental implants. Medicina Oral Patología Oral y Cirugia Bucal, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.22447.
Ball, P. (2005). Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/436900a.
Biggs, T.C., Bird, J.H., Harries, P.G. and Salib, R.J. (2013). YouTube as a source of information on rhinosinusitis: The good, the bad and the ugly (1984). Journal Laryngol Otol, 127(8):749-54. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0022215113001473.
Desai, T., Shariff, A., Dhingra, V., Minhas, D., Eure, M. and Kats, M. (2013). Is content really king? An objective analysis of the public’s response to medical videos on YouTube. PLoS ONE, 8(12):8–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082469.
Freeman, B. and Chapman, S. (2007). Is “YouTube” telling or selling you something? Tobacco content on the YouTube video-sharing website. Tobacco Control, 16(3):207–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2007.020024.
Garg, N., Venkatraman, A., Pandey, A. and Kumar, N. (2015). YouTube as a source of information on dialysis : A content analysis. Nephrology (Carlton), 20(5):315–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.12397.
Gupta, H.V., Lee, R.W., Raina, S.K., Behrle, B.L., Hinduja, A. and Mittal, M.K. (2016). Analysis of YouTube as a source of information for peripheral neuropathy. Muscle Nerve, 53:27-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.24916.
Hassona, Y., Taimeh, D., Marahleh, A. and Scully, C. (2016). YouTube as a source of information on mouth (oral) cancer. Oral Diseases, 22(3):202–08. https://doi.org/10.1111/ odi.12434.
Hirsch, J.E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46):16569–72. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
Jaffar, A.A. (2012). YouTube: An emerging tool in anatomy education. Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1268.
Livas, C., Delli, K. and Pandis, N. (2018). “My Invisalign experience”: Content, metrics and comment sentiment analysis of the most popular patient testimonials on YouTube. Progress in Orthodontics, 19(1):1–8. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0201-1.
Mazanderani, F., Neill, B.O. and Powell, J. (2013). “People power” or “pester power”? YouTube as a forum for the generation of evidence and patient advocacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 93(3):420–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.006.
NAAC, Revised Accreditation Framework. Accessed on 27th August 2018. Available at http://www.naac.gov.in/docs/latest%20announcement_june18/Guidelines_non_applicable_ metric.pdf.
Pehlivan, S., Vatansever, N., Oruc, A. and Yildiz, A. (2018). Sufficiency of YouTube videos as a source of information in kidney transplantation. Turkish Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation Journal, 27(1):39-43. https://doi.org/10.5262/tndt.2017.1003.23.
Promotion of University Research and Scientific Excellence (PURSE). Department of Science and Technology. Accessed on 27th August 2018. Available at http://dst.gov.in/promotionuniversity-research-and-scientific-excellencepurse.
The top 500 sites on the web. (2018). Accessed on 02nd September 2018. https://www.alexa.com/topsites. (The sites in the top sites lists are ordered by their 1 month Alexa traffic rank. The 1 month rank is calculated using a combination of average daily visitors and page views over the past month. The site with the highest combination of visitors and page views is ranked #1).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All the articles published in Journal of Information and Knowledge are held by the Publisher. Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science (SRELS), as a publisher requires its authors to transfer the copyright prior to publication. This will permit SRELS to reproduce, publish, distribute and archive the article in print and electronic form and also to defend against any improper use of the article.
Accepted 2019-02-05
Published 2019-02-28
