Doing Hirsch proud; shaping H-index in engineering sciences

Open access


The h-index concept has been analysed in aspects of a contemporary tendency of parameterisation of everything and as the potential measure of the knowledge progress, which recognises individuals, institutions and Engineering sub-disciplines that best generate new knowledge. Considerations have been presented at the level of universality of knowledge which implies permanent progress and on the base of careful thoughts of the domestic experience. The h-nature of things has been described, and several axiomatic characterisations of the Hirsch index have been gathered. The mechanism how to increase the h-index has been presented. Some similarities between h-index and the journal impact factor (JIF) have been stressed. Also the universal role of H-index in ranking countries in all areas and in Engineering has been exampled in extended tables.

The Glänzel’s model which connects the h-index with two fundamental scientometric indicators: number of publications and the rate of citation, has been analysed. Following the Microsoft Academic Search, the lists of 15 top scientists from various academic disciplines and separately in Engineering have been composed. It has been found that the population of the best keeps basically the same relations between the h-index and a number of publication, and between the h-index and a citation number. However, even the best in Engineering should publish 2 times a year or more papers to receive the same h-index as top scientists in overall domains.

The h-index distribution of domestic Engineering sub-disciplines has been presented and analysed in statistic categories. The suitable hhistograms and the cumulative probability density function (CPDF) have been elaborated for 21 sub-disciplines and thereupon the Engineering sub-disciplines have been arranged into three clusters. It has been demonstrated that Engineering as the whole and Engineering sub-disciplines are underestimated, compared to other academic disciplines. The adequate normalisation factors have been suggested.

Several other conclusions considered the h,H-indices as the measure of the knowledge progress addressed to individual researchers and to collective, e.g., journals, institutions, organisations, countries, adequately have been written. The h,H-indices are the general measure of the position of the given subject (person or organisation) but cannot be universal.

[1] L. Czarnecki, “Challenges towards civil engineering environment in a light of scientific policy assumptions” Engineeringand Construction 9, 499-502 (2011), (in Polish).

[2] J.E. Iglesias and C. Pecharroman, “Scaling the h-indexes for Different Scientific ISI Fields”, Scientometrics 73 (1), 303-320 (2007).


[4] E. Ecco, The Infinity of Lists, Mac Lehose Press, London, 2009

[5] B.E. Lautrup “Measure for measures”, Nature 444, CD-ROM (2006).

[6] M. Porter, “Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995.

[7] C.K. Życzkowski ,“Citation graph, weighted impact factors and performance indices”, Scientometrics 85, 301-315 (2010).

[8] A. Sawicki ,“Picture of the Polish science after MNiSW ranking”, Academic Forum 11, CD-ROM (2010), (in Polish).

[9] P. Heymann, A. Paepcke, and H. Garcia-Molina, “Tagging Human Knowledge”, (2009).

[10] A.W. Harzing and R. van der Wall ,“Comparing the Google Scholar h-index with the ISI Journal Impact Factor”, Researchin Int. Management Products and Services for Academics 1, (2008).

[11] A.W. Harzing and R. van der Wall, “A google scholar h-index for journals: a better metric to measure journal impact in economics and business”, (2007).

[12] J.K. Vanclay, “Impact factor: outdated artifact or stepping-stone to journal certification”, Scientometrics doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0 (2012).

[13] R. Rousseau,“Updating the journal impact factor or total overhaul?”, Scientometrics doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0649-1 (2012).

[14] E. Garfield, “Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas”, Science 122 (3159), 108-111 (1955).

[15] E. Garfield, “The agony and the ecstasy - the history and meaning of the journal impact factor” Int. Congress on PeerReview and Biomedical Publication 1, (2005).

[16] A. Rogalski, M. Kaźmierkowski, and L. Czarnecki, “Technical sciences in international rankings”, Academic Forum 9, 34-38 (2012), (in Polish).

[17] A. Osielawska,“Evaluation measures of journals and scientists”, EBIB 8, CD-ROM (2008),

[18] Kuan-Teh Jeang “Impact factor, H-index, peer comparisons and retrovirology: is it time to individualize citation metrics?”, Retrovirology 4 (42), (2007).

[19] N. Adler and A.W. Harzing,“When knowledge wins: transcending the sense and nonsense of academic ranking”, Academyof Management Learning and Education 1, (2009).

[20] P.A. Lawrence “Lost in publication: how measurement harms science” Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 8, 9-11 (2008).

[21] P.A. Lawrence “Rank injustice: the misallocation of credit is endemic in science”, Nature 415, 835-836 (2002).

[22] J.E. Hirsch “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output”, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., PNAS 102, 46: 16569 (2005).

[23] R. Kierzek “Polish science in Hirsch index”, Science Matters 6-7, 137 (2008), (in Polish).

[24] J.E. Hirsch “Does the h-index have predictive power?”, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 2, 7080646 (2007).

[25] SJR - Scimago J. and Country Rank Retrieved, (2012).

[26] G.J. Woeginger, “An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch index”, Material Social Sciences 56, 224-232 (2008).

[27] M. Kosmulski, “I-a bibliometric Index”, Academic Forum 11, 31 (2011), (in Polish).

[28] G. Prathap, “Hirsch - type indices for ranking institutions scientific research output”, Current Science 91 (11), 1439 (2006).

[29] P.D. Batista, “Is it possible to compare researcher with different scientific interests?”, Scientometrics 68 (1), 179-189 (2006).

[30] E. Lillquist and S. Green, “The discipline dependence of citation statistics”, Scientometrics 84, 749-768 (2010).

[31] I. Podlubny, “Comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science”, Scientometrics 64 (1), 95-99 (2005).

[32] K. Sangwal “On the relation between citation of publication output and hirsch index h of authors: conceptualization of tapered hirsch index ht, circulation area radius r and citation acceleration”, Scientometrics 93, 987-1004 (2012).

[33] S. Alonso, “H-index: a review focused on its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields” J. Informetrics 3, 273-289 (2009).

[34] W. Gl¨anzel “On the h-index - a mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact”, Scientometrics 67 (2), 315-321 (2006).

[35] W. Gl¨anzel “H-index concatenation”, Scientometrics 77 (2), 369-372 (2008).

[36] E. Csajbok, “Hirsch index for countries based on essential science indicators data”, Scientometrics 73 (1), 91-117 (2007).

[37] Microsoft Academic Search,

[38] Chemistry World April/23040701.asp.(2011).

[39] The h-index for Computer Science

[40] G. Gugliota “The genius index: one scientists crusade to rewrite reputation rules”, Wired Magazine, www.wired. com/culture/geekipedia/magazine/17-06/mf-impactfactor?- currentP/(2009).

[41] A. Sidiropoulous, D. Katsaros, and Y. Monolopoulos, “Generalized h-index for revealing latent facts in social networks of citations”, Scientometrics 72 (2), 253-280 (2007).

[42] M. Żylicz, “Parametric evaluation today and tomorrow”, Academic Forum 6, ocena parametryczna.html (2006).

Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Technical Sciences

The Journal of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 1.156
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.238

CiteScore 2016: 1.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.457
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.239

Cited By


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 158 158 22
PDF Downloads 43 43 9