The H-index in Life and Health Sciences: Advantages, Drawbacks and Challenging Opportunities

Author(s): Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira*

Journal Name: Current Drug Research Reviews
Formerly: Current Drug Abuse Reviews

Volume 11 , Issue 2 , 2019

Become EABM
Become Reviewer


In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of scientific publications. The h-index offers a consistent estimation method about a researcher’s overall scientific achievements since it combines the total number of publications (i.e., productivity) and the number of citations (i.e., quality of those publications). In other words, the h-index is intended to measure simultaneously the quality and quantity of scientific output in a cumulative approach and does not provide data regarding the recent productivity. This editorial presents advantages and limitations of h-index that all researchers in health sciences need to be aware of, especially if this metric is used for professional progression, and discusses the simple modification indexed to “academic/scientific age”. It is obvious that no single metric is perfect, and the use of two or more metrics is more prone to success.

Keywords: h-index, m-index, limitations, advantages, citation impact, author profiles.

Braithwaite J, Herkes J, Churruca K, et al. Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM): A framework for measuring researcher achievement, impact and influence derived from a systematic literature review of metrics and models. BMJ Open 2019; 9e025320
Kelly CD, Jennions MD. The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol Evol 2006; 21: 167-70.
Hirsch JE. Does the H index have predictive power? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104: 19193-8.
Lando T, Bertoli-Barsotti L. A new bibliometric index based on the shape of the citation distribution. PLoS One 2014; 9e115962
Bornmann L, Wallon G, Ledin A. Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data. Res Eval 2008; 17: 149-56.
Agarwal A, Durairajanayagam D, Tatagari S, et al. Bibliometrics: Tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian J Androl 2016; 18: 296-309.
Jones T, Huggett S, Kamalski J. Finding a way through the scientific literature: Indexes and measures. World Neurosurg 2011; 76: 36-8.
Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102: 16569-72.
Schreiber WE, Giustini DM. Measuring scientific impact with the h-Index: A Primer for pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 2019; 151: 286-91.
Wendl MC. H-index: However ranked, citations need context. Nature 2007; 449: 403.
Dinis-Oliveira RJ, Magalhaes T. The inherent drawbacks of the pressure to publish in health sciences: Good or bad science. F1000 Res 2015; 4: 419.
Schreiber M. A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. J Informetrics 2008; 2: 211-6.
Tscharntke T, Hochberg ME, Rand TA, Resh VH, Krauss J. Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biol 2007; 5e18
Bornmann L, Daniel HD. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. J Doc 2008; 64: 45-80.
Ferrara E, Romero AE. Scientific impact evaluation and the effect of self-citations: Mitigating the bias by discounting the h-index. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2013; 64: 2332-9.
Leimu R, Koricheva J. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends Ecol Evol 2005; 20: 28-32.
Wong BBM, Kokko H. Is science as global as we think? Trends Ecol Evol 2005; 20: 475-6.
Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index? A comparison of WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 2008; 74: 257-71.
Meho LI, Yang K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science claim Scopus and Google scholar. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2007; 58: 2105-25.
Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009; 302: 1092-6.
Bornmann L, Mutz R, Hug SE, Daniel HD. A multilevel metaanalysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. J inform 2011; 5: 346-59.

Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

Year: 2019
Page: [82 - 84]
Pages: 3
DOI: 10.2174/258997751102191111141801

Article Metrics

PDF: 16