Some Limitations of the H Index: A Commentary on Ruscio and Colleagues' Analysis of Bibliometric Indices

摘要

The literature on bibliometric indices for assessing scholarly impact, in particular the h index (Hirsch, 2005) and its many variants, is extensive, but nevertheless Ruscio and colleagues (this issue) succeed in making a valuable contribution. The authors have made the effort of collecting publication and citation data for no less than 1,750 researchers, thereby, allowing for a much larger empirical analysis than what is usually found in the literature. Despite its limitations, the validity analysis reported by the authors provides substantial support for preferring the h index and some of its variants over a number of more conventional indices, like the total-citation-count index. In this respect, the paper by Ruscio and colleagues considerably strengthens existing empirical evidence in favor of the h index, such as the evidence provided by Hirsch (2007).