, Volume 99, Issue 3, pp 811–821 | Cite as

hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences

  • Anne-Wil HarzingEmail author
  • Satu Alakangas
  • David Adams


Hirsch’s h-index cannot be used to compare academics that work in different disciplines or are at different career stages. Therefore, a metric that corrects for these differences would provide information that the h-index and its many current refinements cannot deliver. This article introduces such a metric, namely the hI,annual (or hIa for short). The hIa-index represents the average annual increase in the individual h-index. Using a sample of 146 academics working in five major disciplines and representing a wide variety of career lengths, we demonstrate that this metric attenuates h-index differences attributable to disciplinary background and career length. It is also easy to calculate with readily available data from all major bibliometric databases, such as Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge, Scopus and Google Scholar. Finally, as the metric represents the average number of single-author-equivalent “impactful” articles that an academic has published per year, it also allows an intuitive interpretation. Although just like any other metric, the hIa-index should never be used as the sole criterion to evaluate academics, we argue that it provides a more reliable comparison between academics than currently available metrics.


h-Index Citations Scopus Research impact 


  1. Adler, N., & Harzing, A. W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. The Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonakis, J., & Lalive, R. (2008). Quantifying scholarly impact: IQp versus the Hirsch h. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 956–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., & Kinouchi, O. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68(1), 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Börner, K., Dall’Asta, L., Ke, W., & Vespignani, A. (2005). Studying the emerging global brain: Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity, 10(4), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2011). The h index as a research performance indicator. European Science Editing, 37(3), 77–80.Google Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h-index and 37 different h-index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourke, P. (1997). Discipline boundaries in the social sciences. Occasional Paper Series 1. Canberra: Academy of the Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  8. Burrell, Q. L. (2007). Hirsch index or Hirsch rate? Some thoughts arising from Liang’s data. Scientometrics, 73(1), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? Scientometrics, 61(3), 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hagen, N. T. (2009). Credit for coauthors. Science, 323(5914), 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hare, J. (2012, December 6). How universities performed in ERA 2012. The Australian. Retrieved from
  13. Harzing, A. W. (2007) Publish or Perish. Retrieved from
  14. Harzing, A. W. (2010). The Publish or Perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research.Google Scholar
  15. Hellqvist, B. (2010). Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 310–318.Google Scholar
  16. 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(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85(3), 741–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaur, J., Hoang, D. T., Sun, X., Possamai, L., JafariAsbagh, M., Patil, S., et al. (2012). Scholarometer: A social framework for analyzing impact across disciplines. PLoS One, 7(9), e43235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaur, J., Radicchi, F., & Menczer, F. (2013). Universality of scholarly impact metrics. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 924–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Schreiber, M. (2008). A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 211–216.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Tol, R. S. (2011). Credit where credit’s due: accounting for co-authorship in citation counts. Scientometrics, 89(1), 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Wil Harzing
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Satu Alakangas
    • 3
  • David Adams
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Management and MarketingUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.ESCP EuropeLondonUK
  3. 3.University LibraryUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  4. 4.Tarma Software ResearchMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations