Abstract:Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various 'groups' of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to 'massage' their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.

Is the new citation-rank approach P100' in bibliometrics really new?

From P100 to P100_: Conception and improvement of a new citation-rank approach in bibliometrics

Which percentile-based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values? An empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation-rank approach (P100)

The Citation-Based Indicator and Combined Impact Indicator-New Options for Measuring Impact

Turning the tables on citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents

Turning the tables in citation analysis one more time: Principles for comparing sets of documents

On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators

An Evaluation of Percentile Measures of Citation Impact, and a Proposal for Making Them Better

On the Predictability of Utilizing Rank Percentile to Evaluate Scientific Impact

Rank analysis of most cited publications, a new approach for research assessments

How much do different ways of calculating percentiles influence the derived performance indicators? - A case study

The use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data: Opportunities and limits

The Pagerank-Index: Going beyond Citation Counts in Quantifying Scientific Impact of Researchers

The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification

The precision of the arithmetic mean, geometric mean and percentiles for citation data: An experimental simulation modelling approach

Recent advances in bibliometric indexes and the PaperRank problem

Do PageRank-based author rankings outperform simple citation counts?

Unbiased Evaluation of Ranking Metrics Reveals Consistent Performance in Science and Technology Citation Data

A Comment to the Paper by Waltman Et Al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011

The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000

Methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics: Which method best reflects the judgements of experts?