Measuring researchers’ success more fairly: going beyond the H-index

Abstract

Citation impact indicators play a relevant role in the evaluation of researchers’ scientific production and can influence research funding and future research outputs. The H-index is widely used in this regard, in spite of several shortcomings such as not considering the actual contribution of each author, the number of authors, their overall scientific production and the scientific quality of citing articles. Several authors have highlighted some of these limits. Alternative systems have been proposed but have gained less fortune. In order to show that fairer criteria to assess researchers’ scientific impact can be achieved, a workable example is presented through a novel method, integrating the aforementioned elements by using information available in bibliographic databases. A better, merit-based proxy measure is warranted and can be achieved, although a perfect score without shortcomings is a chimera. Any proposal on a new measure would require clear reasoning, easy math and a consensus between publishers, considering researchers’ and research funders’ point of view. In any case, the relevance of authors’ scientific achievements cannot be adequately represented by a quantitative index only, and qualitative judgements are also necessary. But the time is ripe to make decisions on a fairer, although proxy, measure of scientific outputs.