Hirsch originally suggested the h-index as a measure to quantify the scientific output of a single researcher. However, there are some limitations of this method. Therefore, some other methods were suggested (see http://sci2s.ugr.es/hindex#h-index:%20definition,%20applications,%20advantages%20and%20disadvantages). Publish or Perish software(http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish) present the research impact of a scientist to its best advantage.
A "best way" is a bit presumptuous. There are many ways and each is best for its own purpose, depending on what you are aiming to show with that index. Some measure reach, some quality, some other important aspects of a researcher's work. Even the word "impact" can have a wide range of meanings. There can be academic impact, there can be impact on industry, there can be impact on science overall. You should better define the question.
Almost every method has limitation(s). Recognizing the limitation(s) enables you to identify, address and recommend improvements.
Like Peter said, getting to know the researcher and his or her research is the best method. Just ask the Nobel Prize committee.
Why do you think that it is not a suitable measure to quantify the scientific output of a single researcher?
@Peter: There was a reply just below yours and before the one where I ask that question in response to that reply. That reply is now deleted. Maybe the person who asked it subsequently decided to delete it, but my question to him still stands.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Software