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.

Fairly Sharing the Credit of Multi-Authored Papers and Its Application in the Modification of H-Index and G-Index

Modifying H-Index by Allocating Credit of Multi-Authored Papers Whose Author Names Rank Based on Contribution

Crediting multi-authored papers to single authors

Research on Credit Distribution of Cooperative Papers According to Authors' Rank

A Geometric Counting Method Adaptive to the Author Number

A Discussion of Citations from the Perspective of the Contribution of the Cited Paper to the Citing Paper

In Those Fields Where Multiple Authorship Is The Rule, The H-Index Should Be Supplemented By Role-Based H-Indices

Normalized Paper Credit Assignment: A Solution for the Ethical Dilemma Induced by Multiple Important Authors

Collective credit allocation in science

Axiomatic Quantification of Co-authors' Relative Contributions

Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices

Review on Calculating Methods of h-index Based on Co-authorship

Credit allocation based on journal impact factor and coauthorship contribution

Top Cited Articles in Adsorption Research Using Y-Index

Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index

An Emerging Trend of Equal Authorship Credit in Major Public Health Journals

A Modification of Citation-Based Journal Indexes

Measuring academic influence using heterogeneous author-citation networks

The Role of Positive and Negative Citations in Scientific Evaluation

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

The x-index: A new citation-distance-based index to measure academic influence