Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robust h-index

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The original list of authors was obtained from Webometrics 2016. The final data was generated using data gathered from Microsoft’s Knowledge .

References

  • Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hwang, J. (2010). 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. Scientometrics, 83(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. (2003). A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics, 56(2), 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartneck, C., & Kokkelmans, S. (2011). Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 87(1), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. (2008). 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. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 830–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bras-Amorós, M., Domingo-Ferrer, J., & Torra, V. (2011). A bibliometric index based on the collaboration distance between cited and citing authors. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 248–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, Q. (2007). Hirsch’s h-index: A stochastic model. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., & Wan, Z. (2016). New nonlinear metrics model for information of individual research output and its applications. Mathematical and Computational Applications, 21(3), 26.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cormode, G., Ma, Q., Muthukrishnan, S., & Thompson, B. (2013). Socializing the h-index. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 718–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Ruiz, A., Orbe-Arteaga, U., Rios, C., & Roldan-Valadez, E. (2018). Alternative bibliometrics from the web of knowledge surpasses the impact factor in a 2-year ahead annual citation calculation: Linear mixed-design models’ analysis of neuroscience journals. Neurology India, 66(1), 96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2008). An h-index weighted by citation impact. Information Processing & Management, 44(2), 770–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2006). On the opportunities and limitations of the h-index. Science Focus, 1(1), 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horzyk, A. (2014). P-index-a fair alternative to h-index. Poland: Department of Automatics and Biomedical Engineering.

  • Hu, X., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2010). In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, B., Liang, L., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The r-and ar-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52(6), 855–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsaros, D., Akritidis, L., & Bozanis, P. (2009). The f index: Quantifying the impact of coterminal citations on scientists’ ranking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(5), 1051–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosmulski, M. (2006). A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(3), 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krampen, G., Becker, R., Wahner, U., & Montada, L. (2007). On the validity of citation counting in science evaluation: Content analyses of references and citations in psychological publications. Scientometrics, 71(2), 191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livas, C., & Delli, K. (2018). Journal self-citation rates and impact factors in dentistry, oral surgery, and medicine: A 3-year bibliometric analysis. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, 18(4), 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, M., & Quan, H. (2017). The use of the h-index to evaluate and rank academic departments. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 6(4), 304–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikhailov, O. (2012). A new citation index for researchers. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 82(5), 403–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberesch, E., & Groppe, S. (2017). The mf-index: A citation-based multiple factor index to evaluate and compare the output of scientists. Open Journal of Web Technologies, 4(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presser, S. (1980). Collaboration and the quality of research. Social Studies of Science, 10(1), 95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard, B. (2009). A simple method for excluding self-citation from the h-index: The b-index. Online Information Review, 33(6), 1129–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roldan-Valadez, E., Orbe-Arteaga, U., & Rios, C. (2018). Eigenfactor score and alternative bibliometrics surpass the impact factor in a 2-years ahead annual-citation calculation: A linear mixed design model analysis of radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging journals. La Radiologia Medica, 123(7), 524–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roldan-Valadez, E., & Rios, C. (2015). Alternative bibliometrics from impact factor improved the esteem of a journal in a 2-year-ahead annual-citation calculation. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 27(2), 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2007). Self-citation corrections for the Hirsch index. Europhysics Letters, 78(3), 30002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Malighetti, P. (2019). Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions. Research Policy, 48(2), 478–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, H., & Bonzi, S. (1998). Patterns of self-citation across disciplines (1980–1989). Journal of Information Science, 24(6), 431–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, J. (2007). On the robustness of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1547–1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villasenor-Almaraz, M., Islas-Serrano, J., Murata, C., & Roldan-Valadez, E. (2019). Impact factor correlations with Scimago Journal Rank, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, Eigenfactor Score, and the Citescore in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging journals. La Radiologia Medica, 124(6), 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhite, A., & Fong, E. (2012). Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335(6068), 542–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, W. (1999). The state of record linkage and current research problems. Technical report statistical research report series RR99/04. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

  • Zaggl, M. (2017). Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science. Research Policy, 46(5), 970–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Sebastian Moreno acknowledges the support of “Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering and Sciences, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Viña del Mar, Chile

    Maurice Poirrier, Sebastián Moreno & Gonzalo Huerta-Cánepa

Authors
  1. Maurice Poirrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastián Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gonzalo Huerta-Cánepa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Authors’ contributions idea for the article: SM. Literature search: MP. Data analysis: MP, SM, GH-C. First draft: MP. Critical revision of the work: MP, SM, GH-C.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastián Moreno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Poirrier, M., Moreno, S. & Huerta-Cánepa, G. Robust h-index. Scientometrics 126, 1969–1981 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03857-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

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

Keywords

Search

Navigation