Journal of Information and Knowledge (Formerly SRELS Journal of Information Management)

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Assessment of YouTube Videos on H Index


Affiliations
1 Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Lal Pur, Amarkantak - 484886, Madhya Pradesh, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


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.

Keywords

H-Index, Information Quality, Videos, YouTube.
User
About The Author

Mohit Garg
Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Lal Pur, Amarkantak - 484886, Madhya Pradesh
India


Notifications

  • 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/10.4172/2155-9570.1000595.

  • 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).


Abstract Views: 288

PDF Views: 14




  • Assessment of YouTube Videos on H Index

Abstract Views: 288  |  PDF Views: 14

Authors

Mohit Garg
Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Lal Pur, Amarkantak - 484886, Madhya Pradesh, India

Abstract


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.

Keywords


H-Index, Information Quality, Videos, YouTube.

References