To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts
By Michael Schreiber. 2008
158 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The h-index has been introduced by Hirsch as a useful measure to characterize the scientific output of a researcher. I suggest a simple modification in order to take multiple co-authorship appropriately into account, by counting each paper only fractionally according to (the inverse of) the number of authors. The resulting hm-indices for eight famous physicists lead to a different ranking from the original h-indices.
Subfields: History and Philosophy of Science, Information Systems and Management, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a386f08ac1c6b9350d9c81d57cd5a46bc41c7dc9
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In History and Philosophy of Science
In Information Systems and Management
In Statistics and Probability
- Ludo Waltman
- Ku Leuven
- R. Rousseau
- Raminta Pranckute
- Nees Jan van Eck
- Judit Bar-Ilan
- Loet Leydesdorff
- Leo Egghe
Citations in the corpus
- A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2015, methodology): “A related analysis is presented by Van Raan (2004). He studies ‘sleeping beauties in science’, which are extreme examples of delayed recognition.”
- Reflections on recent developments of the h-index and h-type indices (2008, background): “[11]) takes the number of co-authors and possibly their contribution to the article into account, as does Schreiber’s hm (Schreiber[12]) and the adapted pure hindex (Chai et al.”