2011/08/19 by Ludo Waltman, Nees Jan van Eck, Waltman, Ludo +1 · 1 citation
Decision Sciences · #Digital Libraries (cs.DL) #FOS: Computer and information sciences #FOS: Physical sciences #Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph) #scientometrics and bibliometrics research
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1108.3901
openalex publication_date 2011/08/19 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
The h-index is a popular bibliometric indicator for assessing individual scientists. We criticize the h-index from a theoretical point of view. We argue that for the purpose of measuring the overall scientific impact of a scientist (or some other unit of analysis) the h-index behaves in a counterintuitive way. In certain cases, the mechanism used by the h-index to aggregate publication and citation statistics into a single number leads to inconsistencies in the way in which scientists are ranked. Our conclusion is that the h-index cannot be considered an appropriate indicator of a scientist's overall scientific impact. Based on recent theoretical insights, we discuss what kind of indicators can be used as an alternative to the h-index. We pay special attention to the highly cited publications indicator. This indicator has a lot in common with the h-index, but unlike the h-index it does not produce inconsistent rankings.