The h-index is a recent but already quite popular way of measuring research quality and quantity. However, it discounts highly-cited
papers. The g-index corrects for this, but it is sensitivity to the number of never-cited papers. Besides, h- or g-index-based
rankings have a large number of ties. Therefore, this paper introduces two new indices, and tests their performance for the
100 most prolific economists. A researcher has a t-number (f-number) of t (f) if t (f) is the largest number for which it holds that she has t (f) publications for which the geometric (harmonic) average number of citations is at least t (f). The new indices overcome the shortcomings of the old indices.
There is a growing literature measuring research excellence in economics. The h-index is noteworthy in combining quantity
and research quality in a single measure of researcher excellence, and its ability to be extended to measure the quantity
and quality of the researchers in a department. We extend the use of the first successive h-index further to measure the quality
of graduate education, specifically excellence in research supervision, based on publication and citation data for individual
researchers ascribed to their graduate supervisors.
I propose a new method (Pareto weights) to objectively attribute citations to co-authors. Previous methods either profess ignorance about the seniority of co-authors (egalitarian weights) or are based in an ad hoc way on the order of authors (rank weights). Pareto weights are based on the respective citation records of the co-authors. Pareto weights are proportional to the probability of observing the number of citations obtained. Assuming a Pareto distribution, such weights can be computed with a simple, closed-form equation but require a few iterations and data on a scholar, her co-authors, and her co-authors’ co-authors. The use of Pareto weights is illustrated with a group of prominent economists. In this case, Pareto weights are very different from rank weights. Pareto weights are more similar to egalitarian weights but can deviate up to a quarter in either direction (for reasons that are intuitive).
Performance measures of individual scholars tend to ignore the context. I introduce contextualised metrics: cardinal and ordinal pseudo-Shapley values that measure a scholar's contribution to (perhaps power over) her own school and her market value to other schools should she change job. I illustrate the proposed measures with business scholars and business schools in Ireland. Although conceptually superior, the power indicators imply a ranking of scholars within a school that is identical to the corresponding conventional performance measures. The market value indicators imply an identical ranking within schools and a very similar ranking between schools. The ordinal indices further contextualise performance measures and thus deviate further from the corresponding conventional indicators. As the ordinal measures are discontinuous by construction, a natural classification of scholars emerges. Averaged over schools, the market values offer little extra information over the corresponding production and impact measures. The ordinal power measure indicates the robustness or fragility of an institution's place in the rank order. It is only weakly correlated with the concentration of publications and citations.
We rank economics departments in the Republic of Ireland according to the number of publications, number of citations, and
successive h-index of research-active staff. We increase the discriminatory power of the h1-index by introducing three generalizations, each of which is a rational number. The first (h1+) measures the excess over the actual h-index, while the other two (h1*, h1Δ) measures the distance to the next h-index. At the individual level, h* and hΔ coincide while h+ is undefined.