Beyond the Durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output

Abstract

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” (h T), that positively enumerates all citations, yet scoring them on an equitable basis with h.

The career progression of h T and h are compared for six eminent scientists in contrasting fields. Calculated h T for year 2006 ranged between 44.32 and 72.03, with a corresponding range in h of 26 to 44. We argue that the h T-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.

References

  1. Andrews, G. E. (1984), The Theory of Partitions. Cambridge University Press.

  2. Ball, P. (2005), Achievement index climbs the ranks, Nature, 448: 737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., Martinez, A. S. (2006), Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68: 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bornmann, L., Daniel, H.-D. (2005), Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics, 65: 391–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cronin, B., Meho, L. (2006), Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57: 1275–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Egghe, L. (2006), Theory and practise of the g-index, Scientometrics, 69: 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Holden, C. (2005), Random samples: Data point — Impact factor, Science, 309: 1181.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jin, B. H. (2006), H-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist, Science Focus, 1: 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kostoff, R. N. (2007), The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet. Scientometrics, 72: 513–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Liang, L. (2006), H-index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications, Scientometrics, 69: 153–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Opthof, T. (1997), Sense and nonsense about the impact factor, Cardiovascular Research, 33: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Opthof, T., Coronel, R., Piper, H. M. (2004), Impact factors: no totum pro parte by skewness of citation, Cardiovascular Research, 61: 201–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Redner, S. (2005), Citation statistics from 110 years of Physical Review, Physics Today, 58: 49–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. Schreiber, M. (2007), Self-citation corrections for the Hirsch index, Europhysics Letters, 78: 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Seglen, P. O. (1992), The skewness of science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43: 628–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. van Raan, A. J. F. (2004), Sleeping beauties in science, Scientometrics, 59: 467–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vanclay, J. K. (2007), On the robustness of the h-index, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58: 1547–1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vinkler, P. (2007), Eminence of scientists in the light of the h-index and other scientometric indicators, Journal of Information Science, 33: 481–491.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas R. Anderson.

Additional information

Sadly, after a long and distinguished career, Peter Killworth died on 28 Jan 2008.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, T.R., Hankin, R.K.S. & Killworth, P.D. Beyond the Durfee square: Enhancing the h-index to score total publication output. Scientometrics 76, 577–588 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-2071-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • SAHA
  • Citation Count
  • Publication Output
  • Career Progression
  • Additional Citation