An individual’s h-index corresponds to the number h of his/her papers that each has at least h citations. When the citation count of an article exceeds h, however, as is the case for the hundreds or even thousands of citations that accompany the most highly cited papers, no additional credit is given (these citations falling outside the so-called “Durfee square”). We propose a new bibliometric index, the “tapered h-index” (hT), that positively enumerates all citations, yet scoring them on an equitable basis with h.
The career progression of hT and h are compared for six eminent scientists in contrasting fields. Calculated hT for year 2006 ranged between 44.32 and 72.03, with a corresponding range in h of 26 to 44. We argue that the hT-index is superior to h, both theoretically (it scores all citations), and because it shows smooth increases from year to year as compared with the irregular jumps seen in h. Conversely, the original h-index has the benefit of being conceptually easy to visualise. Qualitatively, the two indices show remarkable similarity (they are closely correlated), such that either can be applied with confidence.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005), An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102: 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, C. (2005), Random samples: Data point — Impact factor, Science, 309: 1181.Google Scholar
Jin, B. H. (2006), H-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist, Science Focus, 1: 8–9.Google Scholar
Kostoff, R. N. (2007), The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet. Scientometrics, 72: 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, L. (2006), H-index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications, Scientometrics, 69: 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheim, C. (2007), Using the h-index to rank influential British researchers in information science and librarianship, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58: 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opthof, T. (1997), Sense and nonsense about the impact factor, Cardiovascular Research, 33: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opthof, T., Coronel, R., Piper, H. M. (2004), Impact factors: no totum pro parte by skewness of citation, Cardiovascular Research, 61: 201–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redner, S. (2005), Citation statistics from 110 years of Physical Review, Physics Today, 58: 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saha, S., Saint, S., Christakis, D. A. (2003), Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91: 42–46.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. (2007), Self-citation corrections for the Hirsch index, Europhysics Letters, 78: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seglen, P. O. (1992), The skewness of science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43: 628–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar