Abstract:Of the existing theoretical formulas for the h-index, those recently suggested by Burrell (J Informetr 7:774–783, 2013b) and by Bertoli-Barsotti and Lando (J Informetr 9(4):762–776, 2015) have proved very effective in estimating the actual value of the h-index Hirsch (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569–16572, 2005), at least at the level of the individual scientist. These approaches lead (or may lead) to two slightly different formulas, being based, respectively, on a “standard” and a “shifted” version of the geometric distribution. In this paper, we review the genesis of these two formulas—which we shall call the “basic” and “improved” Lambert-W formula for the h-index—and compare their effectiveness with that of a number of instances taken from the well-known Glänzel–Schubert class of models for the h-index (based, instead, on a Paretian model) by means of an empirical study. All the formulas considered in the comparison are “ready-to-use”, i.e., functions of simple citation indicators such as: the total number of publications; the total number of citations; the total number of cited paper; the number of citations of the most cited paper. The empirical study is based on citation data obtained from two different sets of journals belonging to two different scientific fields: more specifically, 231 journals from the area of “Statistics and Mathematical Methods” and 100 journals from the area of “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”, totaling almost 100,000 and 20,000 publications, respectively. The citation data refer to different publication/citation time windows, different types of “citable” documents, and alternative approaches to the analysis of the citation process (“prospective” and “retrospective”). We conclude that, especially in its improved version, the Lambert-W formula for the h-index provides a quite robust and effective ready-to-use rule that should be preferred to other known formulas if one’s goal is (simply) to derive a reliable estimate of the h-index.

The predictability of the Hirsch index evolution

How relevant is the predictive power of the h-index? A case study of the time-dependent Hirsch index

Does the h-index have predictive power?

Quantitative analysis of automatic performance evaluation systems based on the h-index

The inconsistency of the h-index

Does the $h_α$ index reinforce the Matthew effect in science? Agent-based simulations using Stata and R

Predicting scientific impact based on h-index

The inconsistency of h-index: a mathematical analysis

Do Hirsch-type Indices Behave the Same in Assessing Single Publications? an Empirical Study of 29 Bibliometric Indicators.

Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks

What does Hirsch index evolution explain us? A case study: Turkish Journal of Chemistry

The h-Index: Understanding its predictors, significance, and criticism

Will This Paper Increase Your h-index? Scientific Impact Prediction

Investigating the contribution of author- and publication-specific features to scholars' h-index prediction

A theoretical model of the relationship between the h-index and other simple citation indicators

Can Scientific Impact Be Predicted?

Scaling and Kinetic Exchange Like Behavior of Hirsch Index and Total Citation Distributions: Scopus-CiteScore Data Analysis

Assessing the accuracy of the h and g indexes for measuring researchers' productivity

Learning to Predict Citation-Based Impact Measures

Exploring the limitations of the h-index and h-type indexes in measuring the research performance of authors

The case for caution in predicting scientists' future impact