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.

A rationale for the Hirsch-index rank-order distribution and a comparison with the impact factor rank-order distribution

The Hirsch index of a shifted Lotka function and its relation with the impact factor

The inconsistency of h-index: a mathematical analysis

On the meaning of the h-index

On the Behavior of Journal Impact Factor Rank-Order Distribution

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

The strike rate index: a new index for journal quality based on journal size and the h-index of citations

A unification of three models for the h‐index

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

Alternatives to the Journal Impact Factor: I3 and the Top-10% (or Top-25%?) of the Most-Highly Cited Papers

The inconsistency of the h-index

Equivalence of inequality indices: Three dimensions of impact revisited

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

The h-index formalism

Unraveling the Rank-Size Rule with Self-Similar Hierarchies

An empirical investigation of the g-index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h-index, the A-index, and the R-index

Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index

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

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

Impact Factors and the Central Limit Theorem: Why citation averages are scale dependent

A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking. The co-author core