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.

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

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

On the meaning of the h-index

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

Identification of Influential Scientists vs. Mass Producers by the Perfectionism Index

Some Generalized Integrals Applied in Scientometrics and Related Evaluation

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

The H’-Index, Effectively Improving the H-Index Based on the Citation Distribution

Forewarned Is Forearmed: The h-Index as a Scientometric

A case study of the Hirsch index for 26 non-prominent physicists

The H L -Index: Improvement of H -Index Based on Quality of Citing Papers

Two fast algorithms for computation of h-index

Central indexes to the citation distribution: A complement to the h-index

On the "persistency" of scientific publications: introducing an h-index for journals

hglobal-index: a novel author-level measure of the diffusion of scientific ideas among high-, low-, and middle-income countries

The inconsistency of the h-index

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

Knowledge Diffusion and Evaluation on Academic Influence in Hirsch-Index Research Areas

Author Evaluation Based on H-index and Citation Response

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

x-index: a fantastic new indicator for quantifying a scientist's scientific impact.