The H-index has been investigated in various studies; this index has many strengths that have made it popular. However, it also has weaknesses, due to which other indicators have been developed. This study aims to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the H-index and provide the minimum set of necessary components for developing a comprehensive author-level index. In this systematic literature review, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Emerald, and ProQuest databases were searched to identify relevant studies. From the number of 14,253 retrieved studies, after two stages of screening, 81 studies were selected according to the eligibility criteria for data extraction. The findings of the study led to the identification of 15 strengths in the three categories of Quality Features, Simplicity, and Suitability, and 13 weaknesses in the six categories of Publications, Citations, Academic Age, Author Credit Allocation, Variety of Fields, and mathematical calculation for H-index. Finally, 28 components were identified as the minimum set of necessary components to develop a comprehensive author-level index to help evaluate researchers more realistically and fairly. The minimum components that need to be considered in developing a comprehensive author-level index can be proposed as follows: Quality Features, Simplicity, Suitability, Publications, Citations, Academic Age, Author Credit Allocation, Variety of Fields, and mathematical calculation.
MarchantT.Score-based bibliometric rankings of authors. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2009; 60: 1132–1137.
2.
LiSShenHBaoP, et al. Hu -index: a unified index to quantify individuals across disciplines. Scientometrics2021; 126: 3209–3226.
3.
WanXLiuF.WL-index: leveraging citation mention number to quantify an individual’s scientific impact. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2014; 65: 2509–2517.
4.
FarooqMKhanHUIqbalS, et al. DS-index: ranking authors distinctively in an academic network. IEEE Access2017; 5: 19588–19596.
5.
PradhanDPaulPSMaheswariU, et al. C3 -index: a PageRank based multi-faceted metric for authors’ performance measurement. Scientometrics2017; 110(1): 253–273.
6.
AbbasiAAltmannJHwangJ.Evaluating scholars based on their academic collaboration activities: two indices, the RC-index and the CC-index, for quantifying collaboration activities of researchers and scientific communities. Scientometrics2010; 83: 1–13.
7.
SalmanMAhmedMMAfzalMT.Assessment of author ranking indices based on multi-authorship. Scientometrics2021; 126(5): 4153–4172.
8.
AlonsoSCabrerizoFJHerrera-ViedmaE, et al. hg-index: a new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h- and g-indices. Scientometrics2010; 82: 391–400.
9.
AbbasAM.Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship. Scientometrics2011; 88(1): 107–131.
10.
BihariATripathiSDeepakA.A review on h-index and its alternative indices. J Inf Sci2023; 49(3): 624–665.
11.
HirschJE.An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2005; 102: 16569–16572.
12.
MohammedSNyantakyiEKMorganA, et al. Use of relative extra citation counts and uncited publications to enhance the discriminatory power of the h-index. Scientometrics2020; 126(1): 181–199.
13.
SchreiberMMalesiosCCPsarakisS.Exploratory factor analysis for the Hirsch index, 17 h-type variants, and some traditional bibliometric indicators. J Informetrics2012; 6(3): 347–358.
14.
HirschJEBuela-CasalG.The meaning of the h-index. Int J Clin Health Psychol2014; 14(2): 161–164.
15.
BornmannLMutzRNeuhausC, et al. Citation counts for research evaluation: standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results. Ethics Sci Environ Polit2008; 8: 93–102.
16.
EggheL.Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics2006; 69: 131–152.
17.
PaulBSahaI.Research rating: some technicalities. Med J Armed Forces India2018; 78: S24–S30.
18.
BornmannLMutzRHugSE, et al. A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. J Informetrics2011; 5: 346–359.
19.
AlonsoSCabrerizoFJHerrera-ViedmaE, et al. h-Index: a review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J Informetrics2009; 3: 273–289.
20.
FuH-ZHoY-S.Top cited articles in adsorption research using Y-index. Res Eval2014; 23(1): 12–20.
21.
BiswalAK.An absolute index (Ab-index) to measure a researcher’s useful contributions and productivity. PLoS ONE2013; 8: e84334.
22.
BornmannLMutzRDanielHD.Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2008; 59: 830–837.
23.
CostasRBordonsM.The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. J Informetrics2007; 1: 193–203.
24.
MohammedSMorganANyantakyiEK.On the influence of uncited publications on a researcher’s h -index. Scientometrics2020; 122(3): 1791–1799.
25.
Buela-CasalG.Scientific journal impact indexes and indicators for measuring researchers’ performance. Rev Psicodidact2010; 15: 3–19.
26.
OkuboY.Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: methods and examples. Paris: OECD Publishing, 1997.
27.
HagenNT.Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably – not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics2010; 84(3): 785–793.
28.
ZanottoEDCarvalhoV.Article age-and field-normalized tools to evaluate scientific impact and momentum. Scientometrics2021; 126: 2865–2883.
29.
ClaroJCostaCAV. A made-to-measure indicator for cross-disciplinary bibliometric ranking of researchers performance. Scientometrics2011; 86: 113–123.
30.
YaminfiroozMGholiniaH.Multiple h-index: a new scientometric indicator. Electron Libr2015; 33: 547–556.
31.
BihariATripathiSAkshayD, et al. h-index and its alternative: a review. arXiv2018.
32.
NorrisMOppenheimC.The h-index: a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator. J Doc2010; 66: 681–705.
33.
RubemAPdSde MouraALSoares de MelloJCCB. Comparative analysis of some individual bibliometric indices when applied to groups of researchers. Scientometrics2015; 102: 1019–1035.
34.
WildgaardL.A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance. J Informetrics2016; 10: 1055–1078.
35.
WildgaardLSchneiderJWLarsenB.A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics2014; 101: 125–158.
36.
HuangMHChiPS.A comparative analysis of the application of h-index, g-index, and a-index in institutional-level research evaluation. J Libr Inf Stud2010; 8(2): 1–10.
37.
González-ValienteCLPacheco-MendozaJArencibia-JorgeR.A review of altmetrics as an emerging discipline for research evaluation. Learn Publ2016; 29: 229–238.
38.
TahamtanISafipour AfsharAAhamdzadehK.Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics2016; 107: 1195–1225.
39.
WaniZAZainabT.A review of eminence of scientometric indicators in scientific research productivity. COLLNET J Scientomet Inf Manage2017; 11: 273–285.
40.
LydonSMaddenCDe BhulbhA, et al. Do gender-based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in healthcare simulation journals? A bibliometric review of the research. Simul Healthc2021; 16: 136–141.
41.
LeeD.Exploring the determinants of research performance for early-career researchers: a literature review. Scientometrics2024; 129(1): 181–235.
42.
AltmannJAbbasiAHwangJ. Evaluating the productivity of researchers and their communities: the RP-index and the CP-index. International Journal of Computer Science and Applications2009; 6(1): 104–118.
43.
AndersonTHankinRKillworthP.Beyond the Durfee square: enhancing the h-index to score total publication output. Scientometrics2008; 76(3): 577–588.
44.
BatistaPDCampiteliMGKinouchiO.Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?Scientometrics2006; 68(1): 179–189.
45.
KaptayG.The k-index is introduced to replace the h-index to evaluate better the scientific excellence of individuals. Heliyon2020; 6: e04415.
46.
CabrerizoFJAlonsoSHerrera-ViedmaE, et al. q2-Index: quantitative and qualitative evaluation based on the number and impact of papers in the Hirsch core. J Informetrics2010; 4(1): 23–28.
47.
EggheL.An improvement of the h-index: the g-index. ISSI Newslett2006; 2: 8–9.
SidiropoulosAKatsarosDManolopoulosY.Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics2007; 72(2): 253–280.
50.
CostasRvan LeeuwenTNBordonsM.Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of different calculation methods. Scientometrics2010; 82: 517–537.
51.
EggheL.Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2008; 59: 1608–1616.
52.
JinB.H-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Sci Focus2006; 1: 8–9.
53.
PanaretosJMalesiosC.Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices. Scientometrics2009; 81(3): 635–670.
54.
van EckNJWaltmanL. Generalizing the h- and g-indices. J Informetrics2008; 2: 263–271.
55.
VinklerP.The π-index: a new indicator for assessing scientific impact. J Inf Sci2009; 35: 602–612.
56.
VinklerP.The π -index: a new indicator. J Inf Sci2009; 35: 602–612.
57.
SchreiberM.Self-citation corrections for the Hirsch index. Europhys Lett2007; 78(3): 30002.
58.
VanclayJK.On the robustness of the h-index. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2007; 58(10): 1547–1550.
59.
ZhangCT.The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE2009; 4: e5429.
60.
García-PérezMA.A multidimensional extension to Hirsch’s h-index. Scientometrics2009; 81(3): 779–785.
61.
SchreiberM.Restricting the h-index to a publication and citation time window: a case study of a timed Hirsch index. J Informetrics2015; 9(1): 150–155.
62.
TodeschiniR.The j-index: a new bibliometric index and multivariate comparisons between other common indices. Scientometrics2011; 87(3): 621–639.
63.
HaleyMRMcGeeMK.A flexible functional method for jointly valuing journal visibility and author citation count. Scientometrics2023; 128(6): 3337–3346.
64.
Rodríguez-NavarroABritoR.Rank analysis of most cited publications, a new approach for research assessments. J Informetrics2024; 18(2): 101503.
65.
AliguliyevRAdigozalovaN (eds). ht-index and At-index for evaluating scientific performance of researchers. In: 13th IEEE international conference on application of information and communication technologies, AICT 2019 – proceedings, Baku, Azerbaijan, 23–25 October 2019.
66.
CostasRBordonsM.A critical view of the h-index: observations based on a practical application. Prof Inf2007; 16: 427–432.
67.
WuQ.The w-index: a significant improvement of the h-index. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2008; 10: 609–614.
68.
ImperialJRodríguez-NavarroA.Usefulness of Hirsch’sh-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain. Scientometrics2007; 71: 271–282.
69.
QiuJMaRChengN.New exploratory work of evaluating a researcher’s output. Scientometrics2008; 77: 335–344.
70.
AntonakisJLaliveR.Quantifying scholarly impact: IQp versus the Hirsch h. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2008; 59: 956–969.
71.
JinBHLiangLMRousseauR, et al. The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. Chin Sci Bull2007; 52: 855–863.
NavonD.The h-i index: a proposed new metric of individual scientific output. Cybermetrics2009; 13(1): 1–4.
74.
WuQ.The w-index: a measure to assess scientific impact by focusing on widely cited papers. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2010; 61: 609–614.
75.
García-PérezMA.An extension of the h index that covers the tail and the top of the citation curve and allows ranking researchers with similar h. J Informetrics2012; 6(4): 689–699.
76.
García-PérezMA.Accuracy and completeness of publication and citation records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google scholar: a case study for the computation of h indices in psychology. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2010; 61: 2070–2085.
77.
SchreiberM.A case study of the modified Hirsch index hm accounting for multiple coauthors. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2009; 60: 1274–1282.
78.
HoY-S.Top-cited articles in chemical engineering in science citation index expanded: a bibliometric analysis. Chin J Chem Eng2012; 20(3): 478–488.
79.
AssimakisNAdamM.A new author’s productivity index: p-index. Scientometrics2010; 85: 415–427.
80.
KosmulskiM. MAXPROD-a new index for assessment of the scientific output of an individual, and a comparison with the h-index. Cybermetrics2007(11): 5.
81.
AjiferukeIWolframD.Citer analysis as a measure of research impact: library and information science as a case study. Scientometrics2010; 83: 623–638.
82.
EggheLRousseauR.An h-index weighted by citation impact. Inf Process Manage2008; 44: 770–780.
83.
KatsarosDAkritidisLBozanisP.The f index: quantifying the impact of coterminal citations on scientists’ ranking. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2009; 60: 1051–1056.
84.
KosmulskiM.A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newslett2006; 2: 4–6.
85.
LathabaiHH.ψ-index: a new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology. J Informetrics2020; 14: 101096.
86.
WohlinC.A new index for the citation curve of researchers. Scientometrics2009; 81: 521–533.
87.
BrownRJ.A simple method for excluding self-citation from the h-index: the b-index. Online Inf Rev2009; 33(6): 1129–1136.
88.
KosmulskiM.Hirsch-type index of international recognition. J Informetrics2010; 4: 351–357.
89.
KaurJRadicchiFMenczerF.Universality of scholarly impact metrics. J Informetrics2013; 7(4): 924–932.
90.
YanEYingDSugimotoCR, et al. P-Rank: an indicator measuring prestige in heterogeneous scholarly networks. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2011; 62: 467–477.
91.
HirschJE.An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics2010; 85: 741–754.
92.
GuntheSSGettuR.A new index for assessing faculty research performance in higher educational institutions of emerging economies such as India. Scientometrics2022; 127(8): 4959–4976.
93.
LiangL.H-index sequence and h-index matrix: constructions and applications. Scientometrics2006; 69(1): 153–159.
94.
SinghPK.T-index: entropy based random document and citation analysis using average h-index. Scientometrics2022; 127(1): 637–660.
95.
BelikovAVBelikovVV.A citation-based, author- and age-normalized, logarithmic index for evaluation of individual researchers independently of publication counts. F1000Res2015; 4: 884.
96.
BihariATripathiS. A new method for key author analysis in research professionals’ collaboration network. In: ChakiRSaeedKCortesiA, et al. (eds) Advances in intelligent systems and computing. Singapore: Springer, 2017, pp. 133–143.
97.
BurrellQL.Hirsch’s h-index: a stochastic model. J Informetrics2007; 1(1): 16–25.
98.
HirschJE.h α: an index to quantify an individual’s scientific leadership. Scientometrics2019; 118: 673–686.
99.
OpthofTWildeAA.The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists: the case of Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. Neth Heart J2009; 17(4): 145–154.
100.
WanJ-KHuaP-HRousseauR.The pure h-index: calculating an author’s h-index by taking co-authors into account. COLLNET J Sci Inf Manage2007; 1(2): 1–5.
101.
ChaiJHuaPRousseauR, et al. The adapted pure h-index. In: Proceedings of WIS 2008. Fourth International Conference on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Ninth COLLNET Meeting Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute for Library and Information Science (IBI)
102.
MazurekJ.A modification to Hirsch index allowing comparisons across different scientific fields. arXiv:1703054852017.
103.
TolRSJ. A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland. J Informetrics2008; 2(2): 149–155.
104.
VinklerP.Impact of the number and rank of coauthors on h-index and π-index. The part-impact method. Scientometrics2023; 128(4): 2349–2369.
105.
TzitzikasYDovasG.How co-authorship affects the H-index?Scientometrics2024; 129: 4437–4469.
106.
BiHH.Four problems of the h-index for assessing the research productivity and impact of individual authors. Scientometrics2023; 128(5): 2677–2691.
107.
ChenYKochTZakiyevaN, et al. Article’s scientific prestige: measuring the impact of individual articles in the web of science. J Informetrics2023; 17(1): 101379.
108.
BornmannLMarxWSchierH, et al. Convergent validity of bibliometric Google Scholar data in the field of chemistry-citation counts for papers that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition or rejected but published elsewhere, using Google Scholar, Science Citation Index, Scopus, and Chemical Abstracts. J Informetrics2009; 3: 27–35.
109.
VercelliSPellicciariLCrociA, et al. Self-citation behavior within the health allied professions’ scientific sector in Italy: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics2023; 128(2): 1205–1217.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
