PaperlayerView exact revision on arXiv

Source-linked AI summary

The w-index: A significant improvement of the h-index

Qiang Wu

arXiv:0805.4650v3physics.soc-phphysics.data-an

TL;DR

The paper seeks a simple way to assess scientific impact that better reflects excellent papers than the h-index. It proposes the w-index, a citation-threshold measure, and reports that it performed better than the h-index in its astrophysicist comparison.

  • Problem

    The paper seeks a measure that improves on the h-index’s accuracy while retaining its simplicity and reflects the impact of a researcher’s top papers.

    Source: §1 · p. 1

  • Method

    The w-index is the number w of papers with at least 10w citations each, provided the remaining papers have fewer than 10(w+1) citations.

    Source: §2 · p. 1

  • Results

    In the comparison of 20 astrophysicists, the w-index and a-index were the most useful and consistent methods, and the w-index’s effectiveness surpassed the h-index’s.

    Source: §3.1 · p. 4

  • Takeaways & Limitations

    The paper concludes that the w-index may have a niche in evaluating scientific achievement and is intended to measure the impact of representative articles.

    Source: §4 · p. 6

    The w-index depends on citations, so citation lag, database discrepancies, and namesakes limit its scope, and one index cannot measure a scientist’s entire ability.

    Source: §4 · p. 6

Abstract

from arXiv · show

I propose a new measure, the w-index, as a particularly simple and useful way to assess the integrated impact of a researcher's work, especially his or her excellent papers. The w-index can be defined as follows: If w of a researcher's papers have at least 10w citations each and the other papers have fewer than 10(w+1) citations, his/her w-index is w. It is a significant improvement of the h-index.

1. Introduction

The h-index is valued for its simplicity, but its accuracy and the simplicity of more elaborate variants remain concerns. The paper proposes the w-index as a clear measure of the broad impact of a researcher’s most influential papers.

1. Introduction

  • The h-index, proposed by Hirsch in 2005, quantifies scientific achievement and gained interest for its simplicity and comprehensibility [1].Source: §1 · p. 1
  • Derived Hirsch-type indices add information but generally lose the h-index’s inherent simplicity.The passage distinguishes indices that count a productive core from those that describe the impact of papers in that core.Source: §1 · p. 1
  • Regression analysis found impact-focused variants predicted peer assessments better than core-size measures [6], while mean citations per paper was judged better than the h-index for scientific quality [9].Source: §1 · p. 1
  • The paper proposes the w-index to improve h-index accuracy while retaining its simplicity, as a measure of the broad impact of a researcher’s masterpieces.Source: §1 · p. 1

2. What is the w-index?

The w-index is the largest number w for which a researcher has w papers with at least 10w citations each, while not reaching the next threshold. The paper presents it as a simple way to reflect the influence of a researcher’s top papers.

2. What is the w-index?

  • The w-index is the highest number of papers with at least 10w citations each, with the remaining papers below 10(w+1) citations.Source: §2 · p. 1
  • Stephen Hawking’s w-index is 24: 24 papers have at least 240 citations each, but he does not have 25 papers with at least 250 citations each.Source: §2 · p. 1
  • Ed Witten’s w-index of 41 exceeds Hawking’s 24, and the index is presented as retaining the h-index’s simplicity while reflecting top-paper influence.The paper also describes the w-index as a “10h-index” when that naming causes no ambiguity.Source: §2 · p. 2
  • The paper says the w-index can usually be found quickly in databases including ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google Scholar.Source: §2 · p. 2

3. Empirical analysis

Across 20 astrophysicists, the w-index and a-index are judged most useful, while the p-method is ineffective. In a second comparison, w-index rankings emphasize scientists’ highly cited representative papers and differ from h-index rankings.

3.1. Evaluation of 20 astrophysicists

  • The evaluation compares seven measures for 20 active astrophysicists with at least 50 indexed papers and over 20 years of research experience.The data came from the ISI Web of Knowledge in May 2008.Source: §3.1 · p. 2
  • The p-method is generally judged ineffective; its placements conflict with other methods for JEB, VMA, HDJ, DJG, and SSN, while the m-method favors fewer-paper authors over LJL.The w-index and a-index are described as relatively accurate for VMA and HDJ; p-method is equivalent to papers/year method [9, 11].Source: §3.1 · pp. 2–3
  • The w-index correlates 0.965 with the a-index, while the g-index correlates 0.967 with the c-method; the author groups w-, a-, and m-methods apart from the p-method.The w-index and a-index focus on citations of outstanding papers; w-index and a-index correlations with p-method are 0.450 and 0.420, respectively.Source: §3.1 · pp. 3–4
  • For the 20 astrophysicists, the w-index and a-index are judged most useful and consistent; the m-, g-, c-, and h-methods show some bias, while the p-method diverges heavily.The author concludes that the w-index’s effectiveness surpasses the h-index’s.Source: §3.1 · p. 4

3.2. The w-index of a few highest-ranked physical scientists

  • Among 10 prominent scientists, Witten ranks first, Anderson second, and Hawking third by w-index; Hawking’s 24 papers with at least 240 citations each contrast with Cardona’s 20 papers with at least 200.The author says these rankings focus on outstanding representative articles, unlike the h-index’s greater attention to paper quantity.Source: §3.2 · pp. 5–6
  • Physics and chemistry have equal reported average w-indices of 27.4, but whether the index narrows cross-field evaluation differences remains open.The author notes that h-index values tend to be higher in chemistry than physics and suggests fields may have similar citation models under w-index.Source: §3.2 · p. 6

4. Summary and discussion

The discussion proposes interpreting w-index levels as researcher-career milestones, alongside the preliminary relation h ≈ 4w. It also notes that citation dependence limits the index’s scope and suggests possible use beyond evaluating scientists.

4. Summary and discussion

  • The author reports a preliminary average h-index about four times the mean w-index, expressed as h ≈ 4w.Source: §4 · p. 6
  • The scale characterizes w-index 1 or 2 as rudiments, 3 or 4 as full mastery of scientific activity, 5 as successful, 10 as outstanding, and 15 after 20 years or 20 after 30 years as top scientists.Source: §4 · p. 6
  • The proposed milestones are somewhat validated by ten highest-ranked scientists with w above 20 and twenty successful astrophysicists with w at least 5.Source: §4 · p. 6
  • Because w-index depends on citations, citation lag, database discrepancies, and namesakes limit its application; one index cannot measure a scientist’s entire ability.Source: §4 · p. 6
  • The author sees potential for the w-index to assess journals, conferences, scientific topics, and research institutions, in addition to scientists.Source: §4 · p. 6
Loading 0805.4650v3…