hα: The Scientist as Chimpanzee or Bonobo

2018/10/16 by Loet Leydesdorff, Lutz Bornmann, Leydesdorff, Loet +3
Computer Science · Decision Sciences · #Academic Publishing and Open Access #Digital Libraries (cs.DL) #FOS: Computer and information sciences #Meta-analysis and systematic reviews #cs.DL #scientometrics and bibliometrics research

paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.06998

openalex publication_date 2018/10/16 · arxiv created 2018/10/17 · arxiv updated 2018/10/18 · openalex created_date 2024/04/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28

Abstract

In a recent paper, Hirsch (2018) proposes to attribute the credit for a co-authored paper to the α-author--the author with the highest h-index--regardless of his or her actual contribution, effectively reducing the role of the other co-authors to zero. The indicator hα inherits most of the disadvantages of the h-index from which it is derived, but adds the normative element of reinforcing the Matthew effect in science. Using an example, we show that hα can be extremely unstable. The empirical attribution of credit among co-authors is not captured by abstract models such as h, h_bar , or hα.

Related

• h_α: An index to quantify an individual's scientific leadership
• The elephant in the room: multi-authorship and the assessment of individual researchers
• Does the h_α index reinforce the Matthew effect in science? Agent-based simulations using Stata and R
• The inconsistency of the h-index
• Viva the h-index