Response to comment “hα: the scientist as chimpanzee or bonobo”, by Leydesdorff, Bornmann and Opthof

J. E. Hirsch ()
Additional contact information
J. E. Hirsch: University of California

Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 118, issue 3, No 23, 1167-1172

Abstract: Abstract In this comment by Leydesdorff, Bornmann and Opthof (Scientometrics https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03004-3 , 2019) the authors criticize the recently proposed $$h_{\alpha }$$ h α index (Scientometrics https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2994-1 , 2018) on the basis that “ $$h_{\alpha }$$ h α inherits most of the disadvantages of the h-index”, that it “can be extremely unstable”, and that “The empirical attribution of credit among co-authors is not captured by abstract models such as h, $$\bar{h}$$ h ¯ , or $$h_{\alpha }$$ h α ”. I refute their arguments and present further evidence that $$h_{\alpha }$$ h α is a useful and essential complement to the h-index.

Keywords: h-Index; Coauthorship; Scientific leadership; alpha (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03019-w Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:118:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03019-w

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03019-w

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().