ArticlePDF Available

The pure h-index: Calculating an author's h-index by taking co-authors into account


Abstract and Figures

We introduce a new Hirsch-type index for a scientist. This so-called pure h-index takes the actual number of co-authors, and the scientist’s relative position in the byline into account. The transformation from h to the pure h-index can also be applied to the R-index, leading to the pure R-index. This index takes the number of collaborators, possibly the rank in the byline and the actual number of citations into account.
Content may be subject to copyright.
The pure h-index: calculating an author’s h- index
by taking co-authors into account
Jin-kun WAN 1,2, Ping-huan HUA1,2 and Ronald ROUSSEAU 3
1 Library of Tsinghua University, Beijing,100084,China
2 China Scientometrics and Bibliometrics Research Center
P O BOX 84-48, Tsinghua University ,Beijing,100084,China
3 KHBO (Association K.U.Leuven), Industrial sciences and Technology,
B-8400 Oostende, Belgium
We introduce a new Hirsch-type index for a scientist. This so-called pure
h-index, denoted by hP, takes the actual number of co-authors, and the
scientist’s relative position in the byline into account. The transformation from h
to hP can also be applied to the R-index, leading to the pure R-index, denoted
as RP. This index takes the number of collaborators, possibly the rank in the
byline and the actual number of citations into account.
The h index proposed by J. E. Hirsch (Hirsch, 2005) combines productivity with
impact. In this article we will not discuss advantages and disadvantages, see
e.g. (Glänzel, Jin et al., 2007) for this aspect, but will propose an adaptation of
the original proposal. This adaptation takes the number of co-authors into
Recall that, when a researcher’s articles are ranked according to the number of
citations received, his or her Hirsch index is h if h is the highest rank (largest
natural number) such that the first h publications received each at least h
citations. The Hirsch core is the set consisting of the first h publications, where,
in case of ties, a choice has to be made. In this article preference is given to
articles with the least number of authors. In other situations preference has
been given to the most recent articles (Jin, 2007; Jin et al., 2007). The Hirsch
core of author A will be denoted by H(A).
Papers belonging to a scientist’s Hirsch core may be written by this author as a
single author or in collaboration with colleagues. The question we want to study
in this note is: how can the h-index be adapted in order to take account of the
number of collaborators? Indeed, it goes without saying that it is much easier to
get a high h-index when one has written many papers with many collaborators.
We will moreover take an author’s rank in the byline into account and propose a
new index, denoted as hP, for evaluating the so-called pure contribution of a
given author.
The idea of taken the number of co-authors into account has already been
considered by Batista et al. (2006). They simply divide h by the average number
of researchers in the publications of the Hirsch core. Quentin Burrell (2007)
proposes to discount the h-index for career length, multi-authorship and
self-citations. He notes that if discounting is performed before the determination
of the Hirsch core this core itself can be reduced. This is one possible approach.
We will take another approach by first determining the h-index and Hirsch core
in the usual way, and then determining a complementary index. Egghe (2007)
presents a mathematical theory of the h-index (and also of the g-index) in case
of fractional counting (see next section for a definition). He considers fractional
counting of citations as well as fractional counting of publications.
Methods for accrediting publications to authors
In this section we present a short overview of some scoring methods (Egghe et
al., 2000). The number of co-authors of an article is denoted by N. The term
‘normalized score’ is used to indicate that the sum of the scores of all
co-authors is equal to one.
(1) First-author counting (Cole & Cole, 1973)
Only the first of the N authors of a paper receives a credit equal to one. The
other authors do not receive any credit. This method is also known as straight
counting. It has been argued, again and again, that this is not an acceptable
method for assigning credits to authors (Lindsey, 1980).
(2) Total counting
Here, each of the N authors receives one credit. This counting method is also
called normal, or standard counting.
(3) Fractional counting (Price, 1981; Oppenheim, 1998)
Now, each of the N authors receives a score equal to 1/N. This counting method
is sometimes called adjusted counting. Fractional counting has been studied
e.g. in (Burrell and Rousseau, 1995; Van Hooydonk, 1997).
(4) Proportional or arithmetic counting (Van Hooydonk, 1997)
If an author has rank R in the author list of an article with N collaborators (R =
1, …, N), then she/he receives a score of N+1-R. This score can be normalized
in such a way that the total score of all authors is equal to 1. In this normalized
version the score is: ⎛⎞
(5) Geometric counting (Egghe et al., 2000)
If an author has rank R in an article with N co-authors (R = 1,…,N) then she/he
receives a credit of
. In its normalized version this score becomes
(6) Noblesse oblige, cf. (Zuckerman, 1968)
In this approach it is assumed that the most important author closes the list.
She/he receives a credit of 0.5, while the other N-1 authors receive a credit of
1/(2(N-1)) each (this is but one suggestion, among many more that are possible
here). Clearly, this concept makes only sense if an article has more than one
author. In the case of one author this counting method assigns a score of one to
the single author.
We note that methods (4), (5), (6) assume that the rank of the authors in the
byline accurately reflects their contribution. If authors adapt alphabetical
ordering, or take turns in being first and second author, these counting schemes
may not be applied.
The co-author adapted h-index, based on the concept of the equivalent
number of co-authors
In the previous list of scoring methods, only total counting is not normalized.
This method will not be used further as our approach is based on normalized
scores. Also first-author counting will not be considered further. We will now
introduce the concepts leading to the definition of an h-index representing the
so-called pure contribution of an author.
Definition: the equivalent number of co-authors of author A in document D.
This concept, denoted by NE (A,D) is defined as 1
SA , where S(AD) denotes
the normalized score of author A in document D.
Clearly, NE(A,D) is at least equal to 1. It has no theoretical upper limit. For a
single-authored article NE(A,D) is always equal to 1. When using fractional
counting NE(A,D) is always equal to N, the actual number of co-authors of the
article. For proportional counting NE(A,D) =
2( 1 )
. This value lies
between (N+1)/2 (for rank 1) and N(N+1)/2 (for rank N). In the case of
geometric counting NE(A,D) =
NR . This values lies between
N (rank 1,
which is about 2 for N large) and2 - 1
N (rank N). Finally in the case of noblesse
oblige the most important author (closing the list; and assuming we are not
dealing with a single-authored article) always has an NE(A,D) equal to 2, while
the other authors’ NE(A,D) is 2(N-1). This number is at least equal to 2 (the case
of two authors).
Definition: The equivalent Hirsch core average number of authors
The equivalent Hirsch core average number of authors for author A, denoted as
E(A) is defined as:
DH(A) (A,D)
(A) N
Eh (1)
Definition: The pure or co-author adapted h-index
We define the pure h-index of author A, denoted by hP(A) as:
() (A,D)
hA h N
E (2)
Clearly, when author A has written all his/her articles in the Hirsch core as sole
author, h(A) = hP(A). In all other cases hP(A) < h(A).
Some examples
Example 1
Assume that three authors, A, B and C always publish together and always in
the same order, namely B – C – A. Assume further that their h-index is equal to
h. Observe that, because of our assumptions, this h-index must be the same for
these three authors.
What is their pure h-index? If fractional counting is used, their hP-value is still
equal, but it is now reduced to 3
h. If arithmetic counting is applied E(B) = 2,
hence hP(B)= 2
h, E(C) = 3, hence hP(C)= 3
h, and E(A) = 6, leading to
hP(A)= 6
Example 2
Assume that the following Table 1 gives the full publication and citation details
of five authors: V, W, X, Y and Z; authors are given in the order they are
mentioned in the byline. Table 2 gives the details for the calculation of the pure
Table 1
Authors V W-V W-X V Z X-Y-Z X-Y-Z V-Y X-Z-W
Citations 10 2 1 5 2 1 2 2 30
Besides the data necessary for calculating h and hP Table 2 also shows the
values of these authors’ R-index, introduced in (Jin et al., 2007). The R-index is
equal to the square root of the sum of the actual number of citations of articles
in the Hirsch core. For author A it is given as shown in formula (3):
D H(A)
(A) cit(A,D)R (3)
Also this index can be divided by the square root of E(A), leading to an index
denoted as RP (last two rows of Table 2). This new indicator is called a pure
R-index, see formula (4):
(A) (A)
RE (4)
Table 2. Calculation of hP and RP using fractional and arithmetic counting
Authors V W X Y Z
Citations 10
h-index 2 2 2 2 2
NE (fract.) 1
1 3
2 3
3 3
2 3
NE (prop.) 1
1 6
1.5 2
2 3
3 3
E (fract) 1 2.5 3 2.5 2
E (prop.) 1 3.75 2 3 2
hP (fract.) 2 1.26 1.15 1.26 1.41
hP (prop.) 2 1.03 1.41 1.15 1.41
R 3.87 5.66 5.66 2 5.66
RP (fract) 3.87 3.58 3.27 1.26 4.00
RP (prop) 3.87 2.92 4.00 1.15 4.00
Note also that, for author Z, we have given preference to the article with the
least number of authors (here one).
According to the standard h-index, these five authors attain the same score.
Table 3 shows the rankings of these five authors, based on the five other
methods. These different rankings again illustrate that different counting
methods lead to different rankings.
Table 3. Rankings of the five authors of Table 1, according to different h-type
Authors VWXYZ
hP (fract.) 1 3 5 3 2
hP (prop.) 1 5 2 4 2
R 41 151
RP (fract) 23 451
RP (prop) 3 4 1 5 1
The hP-index, based on fractional counting, ranks these authors as V, followed
by Z, then W and Y (tied) and finally X; hP-index, based on arithmetic counting,
ranks these authors as V, followed by X and Z (tied), then Y and finally W.
According to the R-index authors W, X and Z score equal (5.66 32 ),
followed by authors V and Y, in that order. This result illustrates the (obvious)
fact that taking actual citations into account gives a different (in our opinion,
better) view on the achievements of these authors. Using the pure R-index, an
indicator that incorporates also the number of collaborators, leads to an even
more refined appreciation.
Additional observations
When fractional counting is used the exact rank occupied by an author does not
play any role. Yet, even then our proposal does not coincide with that by Batista
et al. (2006). We reduce the effect of a large number of authors by taken the
square root. In this way, authors are less ‘punished’ for having collaborated in a
mega-authored, highly-cited article.
It is sometimes possible for an author to obtain a higher hP-value by replacing
an article in the Hirsch core by one outside the core but with less collaborators.
We propose not to allow this, as we only seek to complement the h-index.
Moreover, it would make the procedure considerably more difficult, as many
combinations would have to be tried in order to find the optimal one. The next
example shows that it is indeed possible to increase the hP-value in this way.
Assume that author T has the following author list
Authors A-T A-B-T T T
Citations 3 3 2 1
Then h(T) = 2, E(T) = 2.5, hP(T) = 1.265 and RP(T) = 1.55 ; using fractional
counting. Using arithmetic counting E(T) = 4.5, hP(T) = 0.94 and RP(T) = 1.15.
Considering T’s publications in the order:
Authors A-T T A-B-T T
Citations 3 2 3 1
one could say that h(T) is still equal to 2 (this is, of course not the correct way of
calculating h), E(T) = 1.5 and hP(T) would be 1.633 > 1.265 (fractional counting);
or E(T) = 2 and hP(T) = 1.41 > 0.94 (arithmetic counting). This line of approach
is usually counterproductive for the calculation of the RP-index, as the total
number of citations is lowered, yet in this example RP(T) would be 1.83 > 1.55
(fractional counting); and RP(T) = 1.58 > 1.15 (arithmetic counting). As stated
before, we do not encourage this calculating method.
We have introduced an adaptation of the h-index, which takes the actual
number of co-authors and the relative position of an author into account. It is a
practical way of discounting the h-index as suggested by Burrell (2007). In real
applications many authors may have the same h-index. Applying a
complementary index such as the pure h-index introduces a method of
discriminating among such authors. The pure R-index, denoted as RP, takes
moreover the number of collaborators, possibly the rank in the byline and the
actual number of citations into account.
It is well-known (Egghe et al., 1999; Burrell, 2007) that different counting
methods lead to different rankings. This is also true in the context of h-type
indices. Hence, the concrete counting method should be determined (and
preferably validated) in advance. When the order of authors in the byline does
not reflect the actual contribution then only fractional counting can be applied.
The work presented by Ronald Rousseau in this paper was supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China by grant no. 70673019.
Pablo D. Batista, Mônica G. Campiteli, Osame Kinouchi, and Alexandre S.
Martinez (2006). “Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific
interests?,” Scientometrics, volume 68, number 1, pp.179-189.
Quentin Burrell (2007). “Should the h-index be discounted?,” In: W. Glänzel and
A. Schubert (editors). The multidimensional world of Tibor Braun. Leuven: ISSI,
pp. 65-68.
Quentin Burrell, and Ronald Rousseau (1995). “Fractional counts for
authorship attribution: a numerical study,Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, volume 46, number 2, pp. 97-102.
Jonathan R. Cole, and Stephen Cole (1973). “Social stratification in science”.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Leo Egghe (2007). “Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of
fractional counting of authorship”. Preprint
Leo Egghe, Ronald Rousseau, and Guido Van Hooydonk (2000). “Methods for
accrediting publications to authors or countries: consequences for evaluation
studies,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, volume 51,
number 2, pp. 145-157.
Wolfgang Glänzel (2006).”On the opportunities and limitations of the h-index,”
Science Focus, volume 1, number 1, pp. 10-11 (in Chinese). English version
available at E-LIS: ID-code 9535.
Jorge E. Hirsch (2005). “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research
output,“ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, vol. 102, number 46, pp. 16569-16572.
Bihui Jin (2007). “The AR-index: complementing the h-index,” ISSI Newsletter,
volume 3, number 1, p.6.
Bihui Jin, Liming Liang, Ronald Rousseau, and Leo Egghe (2007). “The R- and
AR-indices: complementing the h-index, “ Chinese Science Bulletin, volume 52,
number 6, pp. 855-863.
Duncan Lindsey (1980). “Production and citation measures in the sociology of
science: the problem of multiple authorship,” Social Studies of Science, volume
10, number 2, pp. 145-162.
Charles Oppenheim (1998). “Fractional counting of multiauthored publications,“
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, volume 49, number 5,
p. 482.
Derek de Solla Price (1981). “Multiple authorship,” Science, volume 212, issue
4498, p. 987.
Guido Van Hooydonk (1997). “Fractional counting of multi-authored
publications: consequences for the impact of authors, “ Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, volume 48, number 10, pp. 944-945.
Harriet Zuckerman (1968). “Patterns of name-ordering among authors of
scientific papers: a study of social symbolism and its ambiguity, “ American
Journal of Sociology, volume 74, number 3, pp. 276-291.
... Batista et al. [32] present a normalization of the h-index by the average number of authors of papers in the h-core. Wan et al. [33] perform a similar normalization, but use the square root of the average authors of papers in the h-core. Chai et al. [34] describe a variant of the h-index that is based on citation counts normalized by the square root of the number of authors per paper. ...
... We contribute such an evaluation. Among other measures, we experimentally evaluate h-frac alongside the scientometric measures of Batista et al. [32] (h I ), Schreiber [35,36] (h m ), Wan et al. [33] (h p ), and Chai et al. [34] (h ap ). We find that fractional measures are significantly more effective correlates of scientific awards than unnormalized indicators such as the h-index. ...
... 2015). Higher correlation We further evaluate h-frac alongside an extensive list of other scientometric measures [5,16,[32][33][34][35][36][46][47][48][49][50][51]. The results are summarized in Fig 2B. ...
Full-text available
The impact of individual scientists is commonly quantified using citation-based measures. The most common such measure is the h-index. A scientist’s h-index affects hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, and thus shapes the progress of science. Here we report a large-scale study of scientometric measures, analyzing millions of articles and hundreds of millions of citations across four scientific fields and two data platforms. We find that the correlation of the h-index with awards that indicate recognition by the scientific community has substantially declined. These trends are associated with changing authorship patterns. We show that these declines can be mitigated by fractional allocation of citations among authors, which has been discussed in the literature but not implemented at scale. We find that a fractional analogue of the h-index outperforms other measures as a correlate and predictor of scientific awards. Our results suggest that the use of the h-index in ranking scientists should be reconsidered, and that fractional allocation measures such as h-frac provide more robust alternatives.
... The author, one year later, reported the application of hm to 26 empirical cases of researchers and claimed superiority over other indices in quantifying the cumulative research output of a researcher while taking multiple authorship into consideration [8]. Likewise, Wan et al. have introduced the "pure h-index" to take coauthors into account [9]. The authors have also presented several possibilities to account for the researcher's sequence number in the authors list, such as total counting, fractional counting, proportional counting, and geometric counting. ...
... Uniformly decreasing distribution of fractional credit shares of a publication among the coauthors(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15) with the corresponding author (the one in the last entry -shown as bold -of each row) getting an extra 5% credit (C = 5). ...
Full-text available
Abstract: As the academic world yields an ever-increasing research output in terms of journal papers , conference proceedings, and books, the rating of published works and authors becomes imperative. All the big citation databases and search engines are currently using cumulative output indices, such as h-index, i10-index, and g-index, which do not consider the number of co-authors or the researcher's sequence number in the authors list of a publication. In this context, the article presents a novel computational approach for evaluating a researcher's scholarly output by taking into account the total number of co-authors, the sequence number of the researcher in the authors list, and the number of citations received per year by an article. Arithmetic progression is applied to quantify the credit for each co-author of a publication. The respective credits of a researcher are then accumulated for all their publications to obtain the rating. The method yields a truer value of the researcher's impact in terms of their scholarly activities. A global implementation of the metric presented in this work will curb the unethical practice of including the names of non-contributing researchers in the authors list and expecting reciprocity in return.
... As a final case study, we take the full publication and citation details of five authors: V, W, X, Y and Z from example 2 and table 1 of Wan et al. 18 . These five authors have published nine unique papers (numbered using the index s = 1 to 9) for a total of 55 citations and Table 3 collects the summary statistics. ...
... of Wan et al.18 ...
... The difference between the hi-index and the pure h-index [75] lies in the denominator. In the hi-index, the denominator is the average number of scholars in the h-core articles, whereas in the pure h-index, the denominator is the square root of the average number of scholars in the h-core articles. ...
Full-text available
The assessment and evaluation of the academic influence of the researcher is a challenging task. This task allows the scientific community to make valuable decisions, such as identifying leading experts in a specific field, nominating candidates for scientific awards, awarding scholarships/grants, promoting researchers, and selecting tenure positions. Scientists have proposed various varied and multifaceted metrics to identify the most influential researchers. These metrics are the citation count, total number of publications, hybrid approaches, h-index, and variants of the h-index. Contemporary research in this domain shows that there is no universally accepted yardstick available for determining the finest parameter to recognize the most influential researcher within a particular domain. Moreover, to identify the potential metric, some researchers have conducted evaluation surveys. In these evaluation surveys, the researchers utilized a very limited number of indices on a small and imbalanced dataset as well as on fictional case scenarios, which makes it challenging to determine the significance and influence of each metric over the others. The present study computed fourteen distinct metrics based on the author-count. Our aim is to identify the potential metrics. For experimental purposes, we collected 1050 researchers’ data from the mathematics domain. For the benchmark dataset, we have collected the awardee’s data of the last three decades of four different societies of mathematics domain. To evaluate these metrics, we first computed the correlations among the obtained values of these metrics to assess their similarities and differences. The results showed a high degree of correlation among these metrics. However, some metrics represent weak correlations, signifying that their rankings are highly dissimilar to those of the other metrics. Furthermore, the position of award winners is checked in the top 10, 50, and 100 return records based on a ranked list of each metric. The potential value of each metric such as the hf metric, indicates that 60% of the awardees in the top 10% of the ranked list are associated with this, whereas the potential value of fractional g metric is linked with 49% of the awardees in the top 100% of the ranked list. Furthermore, it is further scrutinized that most of the award winners lie in a top position belonging to IMS, LMS, and AMS society return by fractional g-index, gf index, and gm index, which indicates that there is some relationship between these societies and metrics.
... 13%. Liczba cytowań (Citations) = c (16,15,14,12,10,3,3,2), Liczba autorów (Authors) = c (2,2,3,3,2,2,3,1) $h m-indeks = 3 Na rys. 2 przedstawiono ważny dla omawianej problematyki rozkład współczynnika h m /h w grupie naukowców z Polski ujętych w rankingu TOP2% za lata 1996-2006 w przedziałach co 0,1. Rozkład dla ogółu instytucji naukowych i grupy politechnik jest bardzo zbliżony z największą grupą naukowców ok. ...
Full-text available
W artykule omówiono istotne wady stosowania indeksu Hirscha (h-index) w przypadku publikacji wieloautorskich oraz możliwości ustalenia w takich przypadkach udziałów indywidualnych. Wyjaśniono istotę dwóch ekwiwalentnych wskaźników bibliometrycznych – hm i Aw opartych na średnich i zadeklarowanych/sugerowanych udziałach współautorskich oraz podano praktyczne przykłady ich wyznaczania. Dane zapożyczono z publikacji naukowych z dziedziny naukometrii i nowej edycji rankingu World’s TOP 2% Most Influential Scientists za 2021 r. In this paper some important limits of the h-index related to multi-authored articles and some practical possibilities of the quantification of individual fractions within the authorship are discussed. The idea of two equivalent bibliometrical indexes - hm (co-authorship-adjusted index) and Aw (author suggested, weighted citation index) was highlighted and some practical examples their application are given. The data were imported from professional publications in Journal of Scientometrics and new World’s TOP 2% Most Influential Scientists in 2021 year.
... Yet, the method does not take time elapsed after date of publication or order of authorship into account. Pure h-index has also been introduced based on various possibilities of considering the contributor"s sequence number in the contributors list, such as total counting, proportional counting, fractional counting, and geometric counting [6]. C-index is put forward which evaluates the scholarly output of a researcher, or a journal based on the quality and quantity of the received citations [7]. ...
Full-text available
As the academic world is focusing deeply on quantification of contributions brought about by researchers, it becomes imperative to assign true and deserving credits to the individuals. Modern-day databases do not account for the number of contributors or sequence number of a contributor in the contributors’ list while assigning credit of a scholarly output. As such, every contributor of a researcher-studded output gets the same credit as does the sole contributor of a single-author output. The current work presents a mathematical method to assign credits based on the number of contributors, the sequence of the contributor in the contributors list (if so required), and the magnitude of commendation achieved per unit time by the scholarly output. The concept of arithmetic series is utilized to materialize the idea of true assignment of credits. A case study is also provided to elaborate working of the mathematical method.
... Seven years after the introduction of the hindex, Waltman and Eck demonstrated its core inconsistency, in that it performs in rankings in a counterintuitive way (Waltman, 2012). With consistent indicators, it is sure that if two authors show the same relative or absolute performance they do not rise or drop rank positions (Riviera, 2012 Wan et al., 2007) that are, in my opinion, inaccessible to end-users who are typically outsiders to the field of indicator construction but use bibliometrics in their daily activities. These end-users, such as reviewers, hiring committees and grant panels, are directly affected by their inconsistencies yet they use bibliometrics to support decisions. ...
Full-text available
... There are more such imperial formulation-based approaches that provide partial citations to each author when a multi-authored scholarly article is cited in another article. L-index [22], k-index [23], eigenfactor-derived scoring system [24], hIa-index [25], RA-index [26], pure h-index [27] represent a few examples. The main drawback of these approaches is that all the authors of a multi-authored article are given equal weightage. ...
Full-text available
A novel scientometric index, named ‘author-suggested, weighted citation index’ (Aw-index) is proposed to indicate the scientific contribution of any individual researcher. For calculation of the Aw-index, it is suggested that during the submission of a scholarly article, the corresponding author would provide a statement, agreed upon by all the authors, containing weightage factors against each author of the article. The author who contributed more to the article would secure a higher weightage factor. The summation of the weightage factors of all the authors of an article should be unity. The citation points a researcher receives from a scholarly publication is the product of his/her weightage factor for that article and the total number of citations of the article. The Aw-index of any individual researcher is the summation of the citation points he/she receives for all his/her publications as an author. The Aw-index provides the opportunity to the group of authors of a multi-authored article to determine the quantum of partial citations to be attributed to each of them. Through an illustrative example, a comparison of the proposed index with the major scientometric indexes is presented to highlight the advantages of the Aw-index.
Recently, the number of multiple authorship and collaborative papers has been growing rapidly. This number differs significantly according to various scientific fields. Known that h-type indices (h-index, gindex, A-index, etc.) are used to evaluate the performance of researchers, which do not distinguish between single-author and multi-author papers in the evaluation process. In other words, a citation received from multi-authored papers is applied to all co-authors (as in the single-authored paper). To solve this problem, several weighted version of the h-index have been proposed. Most of these versions are indices and are based on the division principle of citations based on the co-author’s position in the authors’ order. In other words, according to the position of the co-authors order, the weight is assigned to the co-authors, and the citations are proportionally divided according to co-authors in these weights. Obviously, the calculation of weights is important in this case. h-type indices proposed in the paper are based on the “relative first author” (or “local first author”) principle. “Relative first author” means the co-authors being in the first position relative to the co-authors after him. Based on this principle, existing weighting schemes were modified, and then new weighted h-type indices were proposed for multiple authorship papers according to these weighting schemes. In other words, the “local first author” approach was proposed instead of the “global first author” approach in calculating the h-type indices for multiple authorship papers. The suggested indices were calculated for 30 researchers selected from the Google Scholar database and compared with other relevant h-type indices.
The Hirsch index or h‐index is widely used to quantify the impact of an individual's scientific research output, determining the highest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. Fractionalised counting of the publications is an appropriate way to distribute the impact of a paper among all the coauthors of a multi‐authored manuscript in an easy way, leading to a simple modification hm of the h‐index. On the other hand the exclusion of self‐citations allows one to sharpen the index, what is appropriate, because self‐citations are usually not reflecting the significance of a publication. I have previously analysed the citation records of 26 physicists discussing the sharpened index hs as well as the modification hm of the original h‐index. In the present investigation I combine these two procedures yielding the modified sharpened index hms. For a better comparison, interpolated indices are utilized. The correlations between the indices are rather strong, but nevertheless the positions of some datasets change, in a few cases significantly, depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of h, hm, hs, or hms. This leads to the conclusion that the additional effort in determining the modified sharpened index hms is worth performing in order to obtain a fairer evaluation of the citation records. The Hirsch index or h‐index is widely used to quantify the impact of an individual's scientific research output, determining the highest number h of a scientist's papers that received at least h citations. Fractionalised counting of the publications is an appropriate way to distribute the impact of a paper among all the coauthors of a multi‐authored manuscript in an easy way, leading to a simple modification hm of the h‐index. On the other hand the exclusion of self‐citations allows one to sharpen the index, what is appropriate, because self‐citations are usually not reflecting the significance of a publication. …
Full-text available
Based on the foundation laid by the h-index we introduce and study the R- and AR-indices. These new indices eliminate some of the disadvantages of the h-index, especially when they are used in combination with the h-index. The R-index measures the h-core’s citation intensity, while AR goes one step further and takes the age of publications into account. This allows for an index that can actually increase and decrease over time. We propose the pair (h, AR) as a meaningful indicator for research evaluation. We further prove a relation characterizing the h-index in the power law model.
Full-text available
Authorship practices in collaborative inquiries are an ambiguous guide to scientific contributions. The symbolic meanings attached to various orderings and the actual frequency of uses of name ordering patterns within various sciences and by Nobel laureates and other scientists are explored. A statistical model for assessing whether orders used depart from chance distributions and thus are intentional outcomes is proposed. The data show marked differences among the sciences and also that authorship is a matter of great significance among co-workers seeking to establish their distinctive contributions. Nobelists, once they become eminent, often practice "noblesse oblige," and publish with their co-workers' names first except when the paper is judged of high scientific importance.
Full-text available
The number h of papers with at least h citations has been proposed to evaluate individuals scientific research production. This index is robust in several ways but yet strongly dependent on the research field. We propose a complementary index hI = h2/ N(T)a, with N(T)a being the total number of authors in the considered h papers. A researcher with index hI has hI papers with at least hI citation if he/she had published alone. We have obtained the rank plots of h and hI for four Brazilian scientific communities. In contrast with the h-index, the hI index rank plots collapse into a single curve allowing comparison among different research areas.
Previous studies in the sociology of science have relied on measures of production and citations which have failed to take account of multiple authorship. This study indicates that these previous (and still currently used) measures introduce intolerable error and often profoundly influence substantive interpretation. To address the problem of multiple authorship in the measurement of publications and citations, a revision of current indices is presented. Previous measurement error may well require a re-analysis and rethinking of previous reported studies in the sociology of science.
Responding to Leimkuhler's call for more computer experimentation in informetrics, this numerical study aims to illustrate observed appearances of fractional counts graphs. For instance, assuming a Lotka distribution for articles per author, it shows that for fields in which the single-author article dominates, a maximum value will always occur at one. However, in fields where the multiauthored article dominates, this maximum may be smaller than one. © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the influence of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each co-author or each country. These numbers are then brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. In addition to this, a relative increase according to one method can go hand in hand with a relative decrease according to another counting method. Indeed, we present examples in which country (or author) c has a smaller relative score in the total counting system than in the fractional counting one, yet this smaller score has a higher importance than the larger one (fractional counting). Similar anomalies were constructed for total versus proportional counts and for total versus straight counts. Consequently, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting method does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance. Different counting methods should be used and compared. Differences are illustrated with a real-life example. Finally, it is shown that some of these anomalies can be avoided by using geometric instead of arithmetic averages.
This paper studies the h-index (Hirsch index) and the g-index of authors, in case one counts authorship of the cited articles in a fractional way. There are two ways to do this: or one counts the citations to these papers in a fractional way or one counts the ranks of the papers in a fractional way as credit for an author. In both cases we define the fractional h-and g-indexes and we present inequalities (both upper and lower bounds) between these fractional h-and g-indexes and their corresponding unweighted values (also involving, of course, the co-authorship distribution). Wherever applicable, examples and counterexamples are provided. 1 Permanent address Key words and phrases: h-index, g-index, fractional counting Acknowledgement: The author is grateful to Prof. Dr. R. Rousseau for suggesting to study fractional h-and g-indexes. 2 In a concrete example (the publication-citation list of the present author) we make explicite calculations of these fractional h-and g-indexes and we show that they are not very different from the unweighted ones.