Volume 24, Issue 10 (2-2026)
JRUMS 2026, 24(10): 979-994 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Salari M, Rezaeian M. The H‑Index and Beyond: New Tools for Evaluating Researcher Performance. JRUMS 2026; 24 (10) :979-994
URL: http://journal.rums.ac.ir/article-1-7914-en.html
URL: http://journal.rums.ac.ir/article-1-7914-en.html
Abstract: (57 Views)
Evaluating researchers’ performance based solely on publication counts is not sufficient. The quality and scientific impact of those publications are the primary criteria for research assessment. The H-Index is one of the well-established bibliometric indicators that measures the quality of publications based on citation counts, but it has limitations such as ignoring the number of co-authors, self-citations, and temporal changes. This study examines the H-Index and the indicators developed after it with the aim of providing a comprehensive overview of quantitative tools for evaluating researcher performance. To achieve this goal, a systematic review of the bibliometric literature was conducted. Key derived metrics were analyzed, including the G-Index, Individual H-Index, HC-Index, M-Index, Q-Index, E-Index, QC-Index, QN-Index, Q1-Index, Q2-Index, hb-Index, K-Index, A-Index, R-Index, and AR-Index. The characteristics, limitations, and applications of each metric were examined to clarify how they address the shortcomings of the H-Index. The results show that each derived indicator addresses some of the limitations of the H-Index. Using these metrics together provides a more accurate and fairer picture of researchers’ performance. Based on this review, a comprehensive and scientifically sound evaluation of researchers cannot rely on the H-Index alone. Intelligent use of derived metrics is essential. This study introduces existing bibliometric tools and their applications in a systematic manner and enhances the awareness of researchers and institutions for more precise assessment.
Keywords: H-index, Scientometrics, Citation indices, Self-citations, Researcher performance evaluation
Funding: This study did not have any funds.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Ethical considerations: Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions:
- Conceptualization: Mohsen Rezaeian
- Methodology: Mohsen Rezaeian
- Data collection: Mehrnoosh Salari
- Formal analysis: Mehrnoosh Salari
- Supervision: Mohsen Rezaeian
- Project administration: Mohsen Rezaeian
- Writing – original draft: Mohsen Rezaeian, Mehrnoosh Salari
- Writing – review & editing: Mohsen Rezaeian, Mehrnoosh Salari
Keywords: H-index, Scientometrics, Citation indices, Self-citations, Researcher performance evaluation
Funding: This study did not have any funds.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Ethical considerations: Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions:
- Conceptualization: Mohsen Rezaeian
- Methodology: Mohsen Rezaeian
- Data collection: Mehrnoosh Salari
- Formal analysis: Mehrnoosh Salari
- Supervision: Mohsen Rezaeian
- Project administration: Mohsen Rezaeian
- Writing – original draft: Mohsen Rezaeian, Mehrnoosh Salari
- Writing – review & editing: Mohsen Rezaeian, Mehrnoosh Salari
|
Citation: Salari M, Rezaeian M. The H-Index and Beyond: New Tools for Evaluating Researcher Performance. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2026; 24 (10): 979-94. [Farsi]
|
Keywords: H-index, Scientometrics, Citation indices, Self-citations, Researcher performance evaluation
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Statistics& Epidemiology
Received: 2025/12/16 | Accepted: 2025/12/19 | Published: 2025/12/19
Received: 2025/12/16 | Accepted: 2025/12/19 | Published: 2025/12/19
References
1. Panaretos J, Malesios C. Assessing a Researcher's Scientific Productivity and Scholarly Impact. A Guide to the Scientific Career: Virtues, Communication, Research and Academic Writing. 2019: 69-79.
2. Erstad BL. Recommendations for Assessing the Quality of Clinical Faculty Members' Journal Publications. Am J Pharm Educ 2023; 87(11): 100575.
3. Michalska-Smith MJ, Allesina S. And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing. PLoS One. 2017; 12(6): e0178074.
4. Schmoch U, Schubert T, Jansen D, Heidler R, Von Görtz R. How to use indicators to measure scientific performance: a balanced approach. Research Evaluation 2010; 19(1): 2-18.
5. Salthammer T. Quality or quantity? Historic and current trends in scientific publishing. Wiley Online Library; 2016. p. 347-9.
6. Rezaeian M. Quality of the Articles or Quantity of the Articles? Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences 2020; 18(11): 1081-2.
7. Halford BA. 2020 Ig Nobel Prizes. Chemical & Engineering News 2020; 98: 40-.
8. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences 2005; 102(46): 16569-72.
9. Thomaz PG, Assad RS, Moreira LFP. Using the impact factor and H index to assess researchers and publications. Arquivos Brasileiros De Cardiologia 2011; 96: 90-3.
10. Morrison PJ. The Hirsch Index and measuring the quality of scientific papers. The Ulster Medical Journal 2008; 77(1): 1.
11. Singh HP. Alternative research bibliometrics: It's about quality and not quantity. Shoulder Elbow. 2022; 14(2): 121-2.
12. Dias LA. Relative h-index to compare the scientific performance of researchers. Genet Mol Res 2012; 11(2): 1738-40.
13. Burrell QL. On the h-index, the size of the Hirsch core and Jin's A-index. Journal of Informetrics 2007; 1(2): 170-7.
14. Jin B. h-index: an evaluation indicator proposed by scientist. Science Focus. 2006; 1(1): 8-9.
15. Harzing A-W. Reflections on the h-index. Business & Leadership 2012; 1(9): 101-6.
16. Gray R, Hassanein E, Thompson DR. Journal editors and their h-index. J Adv Nurs 2017; 73(9): 2031-4.
17. Mesgarpour B, Kabiri P, Vasei M, Nasiri I, Aminpour F, Bamdadi F. Attitudes of Academic Members of Iranian Medical Universities towards Factors that Increase h-index and Paper Citations. Hakim Journal 2011; 14(3): 130-6.
18. Light R, Gullickson A, Harrison JA. Inequality in measuring scholarly success: Variation in the h-index within and between disciplines. PLoS One 2025; 20(1): e0316913.
19. Manjareeka M. Evaluation of researchers: H-Index or G-Index which is better? Journal of Integrative Medicine and Research 2023; 1(1): 34-6.
20. Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 2006; 69(1): 52-131.
21. Masic I, Begic E. Scientometric Dilemma: Is H-index Adequate for Scientific Validity of Academic's Work? Acta Inform Med 2016; 24(4): 228-32.
22. Sommer V, Wohlrabe K. Citations, journal ranking and multiple authorships reconsidered: evidence from almost one million articles. Applied Economics Letters 2017; 24(11): 809-14.
23. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA. The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy. Journal of informetrics 2015; 9(4): 746-61.
24. Navon D. The hi index: A proposed new metric of individual scientific output. Cybermetrics 2009; 13.
25. Batista PD, Campiteli MG, Kinouchi O, Martinez AS. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics 2006; 68(1):179-89.
26. Khan NR, Thompson CJ, Taylor DR, Gabrick KS, Choudhri AF, Boop FR, et al. Part II: Should the h-index be modified? An analysis of the m-quotient, contemporary h-index, authorship value, and impact factor. World Neurosurg 2013; 80(6): 766-74.
27. Sidiropoulos A, Katsaros D, Manolopoulos Y. Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics 2007; 72(2): 253-80.
28. Atwan Y, Charron BP, Sidhu S, Cavanagh J, Degen R. Publication Productivity Among Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons in Canada. Cureus 2020; 12(6): e8441.
29. Bartneck C, Kokkelmans S. Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics 2011; 87(1): 85-98.
30. Mallick S, Vashistha R, Vashistha B. Promoting research: why, how, indices h-index, m-index, etc. Translational Radiation Oncology: Elsevier; 2023. p. 657-8.
31. Bornmann L. Do we need the e-index in addition to the h-index and its variants? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011; 62(7):1433-4.
32. Zhang C-T. The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PloS one 2009; 4(5): e5429.
33. Dodson MV. Citation analysis: Maintenance of h-index and use of e-index. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2009; 387(4): 625-6.
34. Mao H, Chen J. Quality Research Follows the Power Law. Journal of Scientometric Research 2023; 12(3): 570-6.
35. Brown OR. The h(b)-index, a modified h-index designed to more fairly assess author achievement. Redox Rep 2012; 17(4): 176-8.
36. Gianoli E, Molina‐Montenegro MA. Insights into the relationship between the h‐index and self‐citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009; 60(6): 1283-5.
37. Kiselev AR. Modification of h-index in the context of the author''s contribution to writing of the article. Russian Open Medical Journal 2016; 5(4):408-.
38. Kaptay G. The k-index is introduced to replace the h-index to evaluate better the scientific excellence of individuals. Heliyon 2020; 6(7).
39. Jin B, Liang L, Rousseau R, Egghe L. The R-and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin 2007; 52(6): 855-63.
40. Jin B. The AR-index: complementing the h-index. ISSI newsletter. 2007; 3(1):6.
41. Wu Q. The w‐index: A measure to assess scientific impact by focusing on widely cited papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010; 61(3): 609-14.
42. van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Generalizing the h-and g-indices. Journal of Informetrics 2008; 2(4): 263-71.
43. Kosmulski M. A new Hirsch-type index saves time and works equally well as the original h-index. ISSI newsletter 2006; 2(3): 4-6.
44. Katsaros D, Akritidis L, Bozanis P. The f index: Quantifying the impact of coterminal citations on scientists' ranking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009; 60(5): 1051-6.
45. Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. hg-index: A new index to characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h-and g-indices. Scientometrics 2010; 82(2): 391-400.
46. Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Castellano C. Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008; 105(45): 17268-72.
47. Abbas AM. Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship. Scientometrics 2011; 88(1): 107-31.
48. Todeschini R, Baccini A. Handbook of bibliometric indicators: Quantitative tools for studying and evaluating research: John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
49.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
