Content area
In academic research, the h-index has gained prominence as a useful metric for gauging the impact and productivity of researchers. This thesis seeks to provide a general overview of the h-index by providing information on the positive applications that the h-index utilizes, as well as the faults and limitations that diminish its utility. This thesis aims to combat the bias of hyper-authorship, which inherently inflates researchers' h-indexes by disproportionately attributing credit to individuals in multi-author publications; as well as provide other indices that could prove to be a possible replacement index or to be used as a basis for creating new and better indices in the future. Moreover, this work proposes the introduction of the Minton-Index, a nuanced adaptation of the H-Index that stratifies citation impact into three categories—high, middle, and low—based on the number of citations a researcher garners relative to their position in the authorship of scholarly publications. By doing so, the Minton-Index aims to provide a more balanced and context-sensitive measure of an individual's academic influence.
Section 2: Brief History
The h-index was introduced by Jorge E. Hirsch in 2005 as a method to quantitatively capture both the productivity and citation impact of a researcher's publications. Hirsch has defined the h-index as “A scientist has index h if h of his or her Np papers have at least h citations each and the other (Np – h) papers have ≤h citations each” [h,2005]. For instance, a scientist with an h-index of 15 has 15 papers that have each been cited at least 15 times. This metric quickly gained traction in the academic community due to its simplicity and the perspective it offered on assessing research impact. The h-index is typically calculated using citation databases such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus, which provide comprehensive access to citation records. Despite its initial acceptance, the h-index has not been without criticism. It was heralded for its ability to condense a researcher's output and impact into a single number, facilitating comparisons across disciplines and career stages. However, the h-index also oversimplifies complexities—failing to account for the varying significance of different author positions, the influence of one highly cited paper on a researcher’s overall score, and differences in citation practices across fields. Furthermore, the value of the h-index does diminish over time; once achieved, it does not decrease, which can misrepresent the current impact and activity of researchers who have reduced their publication rate. These shortcomings have led to calls for refinements and alternatives that could yield a more nuanced understanding of academic productivity and impact.