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.

The "Tournaments" Metaphor in Citation Impact Studies: Power-Weakness Ratios (PWR) as a Journal Indicator.

The Power-weakness Ratios（PWR） As a Journal Indicator: Testing the “tournaments” Metaphor in Citation Impact Studies

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

Impact Factors, Within-Journal Self-citations, and the Pinski-Narin Influence Weights: an Analysis Using Both Subfields and the Complete Journal Citation Reports 2017

Within-journal self-citations and the Pinski-Narin influence weights

The Role of Positive and Negative Citations in Scientific Evaluation

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

Weighted citation based on ranking-related contribution: a new index for evaluating article impact

A Large-Scale Analysis of Impact Factor Biased Journal Self-Citations

Factors, Components and Dynamics: Investigation of Journal Self-Citation and Citation by Equal Opportunity Model

I3: A Non-Parametric Alternative to the Journal Impact Factor.

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)

Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics

An Integrated Impact Indicator: A new definition of 'Impact' with policy relevance

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

Citation graph, weighted impact factors and performance indices

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

Eigenfactor : Does the Principle of Repeated Improvement Result in Better Journal Impact Estimates than Raw Citation Counts?

Fractionally Counted Versus Integer-Counted Impact Factors In The Isi Journal Set 2008

Integrated Impact Indicators Compared with Impact Factors: an Alternative Research Design with Policy Implications