An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output

J. E. Hirsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102

IF: 11.1

2005-11-07

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract:I propose the index h , defined as the number of papers with citation number ≥ h , as a useful index to characterize the scientific output of a researcher.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

On the meaning of the h-index

S. Redner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2010/03/L03005

2010-02-04

Abstract:The h-index -- the value for which an individual has published at least h papers with at least h citations -- has become a popular metric to assess the citation impact of scientists. As already noted in the original work of Hirsch and as evidenced from data of a representative sample of physicists, sqrt{c} scales as h, where c is the total number citations to an individual. Thus sqrt{c} appears to be equivalent to the h index. As a further check of this equivalence, the distribution of the ratio s=sqrt{c}/2h for this sample is sharply peaked about 1. The outliers in this distribution reveal fundamentally different types of individual publication records.

Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability,Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
$\mathbf{h_α}$: An index to quantify an individual's scientific leadership

J. E. Hirsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2994-1

2018-12-10

Abstract:The $\alpha$ person is the dominant person in a group. We define the $\alpha$-author of a paper as the author of the paper with the highest $h$-index among all the coauthors, and an $\alpha$-paper of a scientist as a paper authored or coauthored by the scientist where he/she is the $\alpha$-author. For most but not all papers in the literature there is only one $\alpha$-author. We define the $h_\alpha$ index of a scientist as the number of papers in the $h$-core of the scientist (i.e. the set of papers that contribute to the $h$-index of the scientist) where this scientist is the $\alpha$-author. We also define the $h'_\alpha$ index of a scientist as the number of $\alpha$-papers of this scientist that have $\geq$ $h'_\alpha$ citations. $h_\alpha$ and $h'_\alpha$ contain similar information, while $h'_\alpha$ is conceptually more appealing it is harder to obtain from existing databases, hence of less current practical interest. We propose that the $h_\alpha$ and/or $h'_\alpha$ indices, or other variants discussed in the paper, are useful complements to the $h$-index of a scientist to quantify his/her scientific achievement, that rectify an inherent drawback of the $h$-index, its inability to distinguish between authors with different coauthorships patterns. A high $h$ index in conjunction with a high $h_\alpha/h$ ratio is a hallmark of scientific leadership.

Digital Libraries,Other Condensed Matter,Physics and Society
Forewarned Is Forearmed: The h-Index as a Scientometric

Mohammad Javed Ali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2021.1894889

2021-02-17

Seminars in Ophthalmology

Abstract:The author-level scientometrics is a mélange of several indices, and the 'h-index' or the 'Hirsch-index' is at its forefront. Jorge E. Hirst proposed the concept of h-index in 2005 as a broad measure of the impact of a researcher's scientific contributions and as a possibly unbiased way to compare individuals competing for the same resources.1 It is calculated as the 'h' number of papers having at least 'h' number of citations. For example, if a researcher has an h-index of 10, it means 10 of his papers have at least 10 citations or more. Hirsch, in 2007 put forth his seminal finding that the h-index is better than several other metrics in predicting future scientific achievement.2

ophthalmology
Understanding the ‘g-index’ and the ‘e-index’

Mohammad Javed Ali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2021.1922975

2021-05-06

Seminars in Ophthalmology

Abstract:The 'Hirsch index' or the h-index is a leading author-level research metric, and its value denotes the 'h' number of papers having at least an 'h' number of citations.1 One of the major drawbacks of the h-index is the lack of sensitivity it demonstrates to highly cited papers beyond the 'h' value.2 What does this mean? Let us suppose a researcher has an h-index of 31. An article of this researcher has already received 31 citations and has achieved a 'h top class' or 'Hirsch-core'. It does not matter for the h-index if this article gets continuously cited more and whether it receives 100 or 300 more citations. Hence, the h-index is insensitive to the highly cited work.

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

Antonis Sidiropoulos,Dimitrios Katsaros,Yannis Manolopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1722-z

IF: 3.801

2007-06-17

Scientometrics

Abstract:What is the value of a scientist and its impact upon the scientific thinking? How can we measure the prestige of a journal or a conference? The evaluation of the scientific work of a scientist and the estimation of the quality of a journal or conference has long attracted significant interest, due to the benefits by obtaining an unbiased and fair criterion. Although it appears to be simple, defining a quality metric is not an easy task. To overcome the disadvantages of the present metrics used for ranking scientists and journals, J. E. Hirsch proposed a pioneering metric, the now famous h-index. In this article we demonstrate several inefficiencies of this index and develop a pair of generalizations and effective variants of it to deal with scientist ranking and publication forum ranking. The new citation indices are able to disclose trendsetters in scientific research, as well as researchers that constantly shape their field with their influential work, no matter how old they are. We exhibit the effectiveness and the benefits of the new indices to unfold the full potential of the h-index, with extensive experimental results obtained from the DBLP, a widely known on-line digital library.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index

Shaon Sahoo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1988-0

2016-06-06

Abstract:A researcher collaborating with many groups will normally have more papers (and thus higher citations and $h$-index) than a researcher spending all his/her time working alone or in a small group. While analyzing an author's research merit, it is therefore not enough to consider only the collective impact of the published papers, it is also necessary to quantify his/her share in the impact. For this quantification, here I propose the $I$-index which is defined as an author's percentage share in the total citations that his/her papers have attracted. It is argued that this $I$-index does not directly depend on the most of the subjective issues like an author's influence, affiliation, seniority or career break. A simple application of the Central Limit Theorem shows that, the scheme of equidistribution of credit among the coauthors of a paper will give us the most probable value of the $I$-index (with an associated small standard deviation which decreases with increasing $h$-index). I show that the total citations ($N_c$), the $h$-index and the $I$-index are three independent parameters (within their bounds), and together they give a comprehensive idea of an author's overall research performance.

Digital Libraries,Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability,Physics and Society
Robust h-index

Maurice Poirrier,Sebastián Moreno,Gonzalo Huerta-Cánepa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03857-z

IF: 3.801

2021-02-05

Scientometrics

Abstract:The h-index is the most used measurement of impact for researchers. Sites such as Web of Science, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, and Scopus leverage it to show and compare the impact of authors. The h-index can be described in simple terms: it is the highest h for which an authors has h papers with the number of cites more or equal than h. Unfortunately, some researchers, in order to increase their productivity artificially, manipulate their h-index using different techniques such as self-citation. Even though it is relatively simple to discard self-citations, every day appears more sophisticated methods to artificially increase this index. One of these methods is collaborative citations, in which a researcher A cites indiscriminately another researcher B, with whom it has a previous collaboration, increasing her/his h-index. This work presents a new robust generalization of the h-index called rh-index that minimizes the impact of new collaborative citations, maintaining the importance of their citations previous to their collaborative work. To demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed index, we analyze its effect over 600 Chilean researchers. Our results show that, while some of the most cited researchers were barely affected, demonstrating their robustness, another group of authors show a substantial reduction in comparison to their original h-index.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
x-index: a fantastic new indicator for quantifying a scientist's scientific impact.

Xiaojun Wan

2014-01-01

Abstract: h-index has become the most popular indicator for quantifying a scientist's scientific impact in various scientific fields. h-index is defined as the largest number of papers with citation number larger than or equal to h and it treats each citation equally. However, different citations usually come from different papers with different influence and quality, and a citation from a highly influential paper is a greater recognition of the target paper than a citation from an ordinary paper. Based on this assumption, we proposed a new indicator named x-index to quantify a scientist's scientific impact by considering only the citations coming from influential papers. x-index is defined as the largest number of papers with influential citation number larger than or equal to x, where each influential citation comes from a paper for which the average ACNPP (Average Citation Number Per Paper) of its authors larger than or equal to x . Through analysis on the APS dataset, we find that the proposed x-index has much better ability to discriminate between Physics Prize Winners and ordinary physicists.
A Preliminary Study of the Relationship Between the H-Index and Excess Citations / Étude Préliminaire De La Relation Entre L’indice De Hirsch (Indice-H) Et Les Citations Excédentaires

Xiaoyuan Yuan,Weina Hua,Ronald Rousseau,Fred Y. Ye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ils.2014.0011

2014-01-01

Abstract:This article presents a study of the average number of excess citations of papers in the h-core, denoted as e2/h and the ratio between the e-area and the h-area, denoted as e2/h2. Real-world citation data from different countries are studied. It is found that at the country level, a small set of publications generate a disproportionately large amount of citations. Although different countries have different e2/h2 values in different fields, average e2/h2 values are all above 1. The e2/h values vary widely between fields, reflecting the general citation density in these fields. For cumulative data e2/h2 and e2/h values each converge quickly. Neither a shifted Zipf nor an exponential model could fit the data.
A case study of the Hirsch index for 26 non-prominent physicists

Michael Schreiber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.200710252

2007-08-29

Abstract:The h index was introduced by Hirsch to quantify an individual's scientific research output. It has been widely used in different fields to show the relevance of the research work of prominent scientists. I have worked out 26 practical cases of physicists which are not so prominent. Therefore this case study should be more relevant to discuss various features of the Hirsch index which are interesting or disturbing or both for the more average situation. In particular, I investigate quantitatively some pitfalls in the evaluation and the influence of self-citations.

Physics and Society
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

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03831-9

IF: 3.801

2021-02-06

Scientometrics

Abstract:The Hirsch or h-index continues to be one of the most popular author-based metrics, despite some of its flaws and limitations. In some cases, citations to some academics' work are increasing at a phenomenal pace, and in some exceptional cases such as Highly Cited Researchers (HCRs), whether alive or deceased, citation counts to their work have reached tens or hundreds of thousands, with h-indexes in the hundreds. Although the h-index currently has one additional derivative index, the i10-index, which is a measure of the number of publications with 10 or more citations, the i10-index is clearly not a sufficient differentiating factor for academics with very high citation counts such as HCRs. In this letter, an expansion of this metric is proposed to include an i100-index, an i1000-index, and an i10,000-index, which indicate the number of publications with 100, 1000, or 10,000 or more citations, respectively. These three new, expanded and/or modified metrics that are based on the h-index may assist in more effectively differentiating the top echelon of HCRs or leaders in a specific field of study. The i100-, i1000-, and i10,000-indexes for 10 HCRs (Michel Foucault, Ronald C. Kessler, Graham Colditz, Sigmund Freud, JoAnn E. Manson, Shizuo Akira, Pierre Bourdieu, Robert Langer, Eric Lander, and Bert Vogelstein) were calculated. Limitations to these three new proposed h-index-based indexes are noted.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
On the "persistency" of scientific publications: introducing an h-index for journals

Roberto Piazza

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.09390

2017-05-23

Abstract:What do we really mean by a "good" scientific journal? Do we care more about the short-time impact of our papers, or about the chance that they will still be read and cited on the long run? Here I show that, by regarding a journal as a "virtual scientist" that can be attributed a time-dependent Hirsch h-index, we can introduce a parameter that, arguably, better captures the "persistency" of a scientific publication. Curiously, however, this parameter seems to depend above all on the "thickness" of a journal.

Physics and Society,Digital Libraries
How to estimate the total number of citations of a researcher using his h index and his h core?

Romeo Mestrovic,Branislav Dragovic

2023-07-22

Abstract:So far, many researchers have investigated the following question: Given total number of citations, what is the estimated range of the h index? Here we consider the converse question. Namely, the aim of this paper is to estimate the total number of citations of a researcher using only his h index, his h core and perhaps a relatively small number of his citations from the tail. For these purposes, we use the asymptotic formula for the mode size of the Durfee square when n tends to infinity, which was proved by Canfield, Corteel and Savage (1998), seven years before Hirsch (2005) defined the h index. This formula confirms the asymptotic normality of the Hirsch citation h index. Using this asymptotic formula, in Section 4 we propose five? estimates of a total number of citations of a researcher using his h index and his h core. These estimates are refined mainly using small additional citations from the h tail of a researcher. Related numerous computational results are given in Section 5. Notice that the relative errors delta(B) of the estimate B of a total number of citations of a researcher are surprisingly close to zero for E. Garfield, H.D. White (Table 2), G. Andrews, L. Leydesdorf and C.D. Savage (Table 5).

Combinatorics,Discrete Mathematics,Physics and Society
h-index and its alternative: A Review

Anand Bihari,Sudhakar Tripathi,Akshay Deepak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1811.03308

2018-11-08

Abstract:In recent years, several Scientometrics and Bibliometrics indicators were proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of individuals, institutions, colleges, universities and research teams. The h-index gives a major breakthrough in the research community to evaluate the scientific impact of an individual. It got a lot of attention due to its simplicity and several other indicators were proposed to extend the properties of h-index as well as to overcome shortcomings of h-index. In this literature review, we have discussed the advantages and limitations of almost all Scientometrics as well as Bibliometrics indicators which have been categorized into seven categories :(i) Complement of h-index, (ii) Based on total number of authors, (iii) Based on publication age, (iv) Combination of two indices, (v) Based on excess citation count, (vi) Based on total publication count, (vii) Based on other variants. The main objective of this article is to study all those indicators which have been proposed to evaluate the scientific impact of an individual researcher or a group of researchers.

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

Marc P. Hauer,Xavier C. R. Hofmann,Tobias D. Krafft,Katharina A. Zweig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03407-7

IF: 3.801

2020-03-14

Scientometrics

Abstract:Abstract Since the h -index has been invented, it is the most frequently discussed bibliometric value and one of the most commonly used metrics to quantify a researcher’s scientific output. The more it is increasingly gaining popularity to use the metric as an indication of the quality of a job applicant or an employee the more important it is to assure its correctitude. Many platforms offer the h -index of a scientist as a service, sometimes without the explicit knowledge of the respective person. In this article we show that looking up the h -index for a researcher on the five most commonly used platforms, namely AMiner, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Scopus and Web of Science, results in a variance that is in many cases as large as the average value. This is due to the varying definitions of what a scientific article is, the underlying data basis, and different qualities of the entity recognition problem. To perform our study, we crawled the h -index of the worlds top researchers according to two different rankings, all the Nobel Prize laureates except Literature and Peace, and the teaching staff of the computer science department of the TU Kaiserslautern Germany with whom we additionally computed their h -index manually. Thus we showed that the individual h -indices differ to an alarming extent between the platforms. We observed that researchers with an extraordinary high h -index and researchers with an index appropriate to the scientific career path and the respective scientific field are affected alike by these problems.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
WL-index: Leveraging Citation Mention Number to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Impact

Xiaojun Wan,Fang Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23151

2014-01-01

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Abstract:A number of bibliometric indices have been developed to evaluate an individual's scientific impact, and the most popular are the h‐index and its variants. However, existing bibliometric indices are computed based on the number of citations received by each article, but they do not consider the frequency with which individual citations are mentioned in an article. We use “citation mention” to denote a unique occurrence of a cited reference mentioned in the citing article, and thus some citations may have more than one mention in an article. According to our analysis of the ACL Anthology Network corpus in the natural language processing field, more than 40% of cited references have been mentioned twice or in corresponding citing articles. We argue that citation mention is a preferable for representing the citation relationships between articles, that is, a reference article mentioned m times in the citing article will be considered to have received m citations, rather than one citation. Based on this assumption, we revise the h‐index and propose a new bibliometric index, the WL‐index, to evaluation an individual's scientific impact. According to our empirical analysis, the proposed WL‐index more accurately discriminates between program committee chairs of reputable conferences and ordinary authors.
The strike rate index: a new index for journal quality based on journal size and the h-index of citations

William Barendse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-4-3

2007-04-19

Biomedical Digital Libraries

Abstract:Quantifying the impact of scientific research is almost always controversial, and there is a need for a uniform method that can be applied across all fields. Increasingly, however, the quantification has been summed up in the impact factor of the journal in which the work is published, which is known to show differences between fields. Here the h-index, a way to summarize an individual's highly cited work, was calculated for journals over a twenty year time span and compared to the size of the journal in four fields, Agriculture, Condensed Matter Physics, Genetics and Heredity and Mathematical Physics. There is a linear log-log relationship between the h-index and the size of the journal: the larger the journal, the more likely it is to have a high h-index. The four fields cannot be separated from each other suggesting that this relationship applies to all fields. A strike rate index (SRI) based on the log relationship of the h-index and the size of the journal shows a similar distribution in the four fields, with similar thresholds for quality, allowing journals across diverse fields to be compared to each other. The SRI explains more than four times the variation in citation counts compared to the impact factor.
A Case Study of the Modified Hirsch Index hm Accounting for Multiple Co-authors

Michael Schreiber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21057

2009-03-28

Abstract:J. E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers, that received at least h citations. This so-called Hirsch index can be easily modified to take multiple co-authorship into account by counting the papers fractionally according to (the inverse of) the number of authors. I have worked out 26 empirical cases of physicists to illustrate the effect of this modification. Although the correlation between the original and the modified Hirsch index is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either the original or the modified index.

Physics and Society
National Scientific Facilities and Their Science Impact on Non-Biomedical Research

A. L. Kinney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0705.1797

2007-05-12

Physics and Society

Abstract:H-index, proposed by Hirsch is a good indicator of the impact of a scientist's research. When evaluating departments, institutions or labs, the importance of h-index can be further enhanced when properly calibrated for size. Particularly acute is the issue of federally funded facilities whose number of actively publishing scientists frequently dwarfs that of academic departments. Recently Molinari and Molinari developed a methodology that shows the h-index has a universal growth rate for large numbers of papers, allowing for meaningful comparisons between institutions. An additional challenge when comparing large institutions is that fields have distinct internal cultures, with different typical rates of publication and citation; biology is more highly cited than physics, which is more highly cited than engineering. For this reason, this study has focused on the physical sciences, engineering, and technology, and has excluded bio-medical research. Comparisons between individual disciplines are reported here to provide contextual framework. Generally, it was found that the universal growth rate of Molinari and Molinari holds well across all the categories considered, testifying to the robustness of both their growth law and our results. The overall goal here is to set the highest standard of comparison for federal investment in science; comparisons are made with the nations preeminent private and public institutions. We find that many among the national facilities compare favorably in research impact with the nations leading universities.
$h_{PI}$: The Citation Index for Principal Investigators

Christoph Steinbrüchel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1807.06442

2018-07-17

Digital Libraries

Abstract:A new citation index $h_{PI}$ for principal investigators (PIs) is defined in analogy to Hirsch's index $h$, but based on renormalized citations of a PI's papers. To this end, the authors of a paper are divided into two groups: PIs and non-PIs. A PI is defined as an assistant, associate or full professor at a university who supervises an individual research program. The citations for each paper of a certain PI are then divided by the number of PIs among the authors of that paper. Data are presented for a sample of 48 PIs who are senior faculty members of physics and physics-related engineering departments at a private research-oriented U.S. university, using the ISI Web of Science citations database. The main result is that individual rankings based on $h$ and $h_{PI}$ differ substantially. Also, to a good approximation across the sample of 48 PIs, one finds that $h_{PI} = h \,/ \sqrt{<N_{PI}>}$ where <$N_{PI}$> is the average number of principal investigators on the papers of a particular PI. In addition, $h_{PI} = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{C_{tot}\,/<N_{PI}>}$, where $C_{tot}$ is the total number of citations. Approaches to broadening the scope of $h$ or $h_{PI}$ are discussed briefly, and a new metric for highly cited papers called $h_x$ is introduced which represents the average number of citations exceeding the minimum of $h^2$ in the $h$-core.

An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output

On the meaning of the h-index

$\mathbf{h_α}$: An index to quantify an individual's scientific leadership

Forewarned Is Forearmed: The h-Index as a Scientometric

Understanding the ‘g-index’ and the ‘e-index’

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

Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index

Robust h-index

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

A Preliminary Study of the Relationship Between the H-Index and Excess Citations / Étude Préliminaire De La Relation Entre L’indice De Hirsch (Indice-H) Et Les Citations Excédentaires

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

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

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

How to estimate the total number of citations of a researcher using his h index and his h core?

h-index and its alternative: A Review

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

WL-index: Leveraging Citation Mention Number to Quantify an Individual's Scientific Impact

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

A Case Study of the Modified Hirsch Index hm Accounting for Multiple Co-authors

National Scientific Facilities and Their Science Impact on Non-Biomedical Research

$h_{PI}$: The Citation Index for Principal Investigators