The h-index is certainly the most-widely used measure of academic research quality, even though it does not seem to be clearly understood by every academic.

TRI is easier to understand and calculate than the h-index, especially if you can add and subtract.

As explained cogently in the interesting Question, TRI and the h-index capture different aspects of research quality.

TRI is a weighted sum of Citations, Recommendations, and Full-text and Other Reads by RG members.

The h-index balances Citations and Publications in a square matrix, and is not affected by Reads and Recommendations.

Higher values of TRI and the h-index are purported to reflect higher academic research quality.

Dear Michael John McAleer:

I agree that TRI and the h-index are different though useful measures of research quality.

The h-index has had a much longer history, but TRI is beginning to be understood and accepted by the RG academic community.

An obvious difficulty in any comparison is the different dimensions of TRI and the h-index.

In a prescient Answer to the following Question about a simple new RG mean score:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Time_for_a_simple_new_RG_mean_score :

Chia-Lin Chang suggested that TRI might be divided by 100 to make is closer to the RG score.

Using this clever idea, dividing TRI by 100 also makes it closer to the h-index.

Dear Michael John McAleer:

Thank you your perspicacious Answer using the communications related to another interesting Question.

Well TRI and the h-index both are two different things. But i prefer better measure of research quality should be based on h-index.

Dear Sadanand Pandey :

Thank you for your carefully considered Answer and declared preference for the h-index.

TRI is much more recent, but seems to be increasingly and widely accepted as a measure of academic research quality.

A sincere and appreciative acknowledgement to all for the very helpful and thoughtful Answers.

Another issue related to attempts to increase the RG score, which might not apply to TRI or the h-index, is repeatedly using one-word Answers, such as "Following", for which an interesting one-word alternative response is "Accepting".

One makes as much or as little sense as the other.

The equation to calculate TRI is:

TRI = (0.5 x Citations) + (0.25 x Recommendations) + (0.15 x Full Text Reads)

+ (0.05 x Other Reads)

Reads are by RG members.

The algebraic equation given above is for calculating TRI, which holds on a weekly basis as well as in aggregate for all previous weeks.

It is a formula that is used to calculate TRI for every academic on RG:

https://www.researchgate.net/application.researchInterest.ResearchInterestHelp.html

As some academics are not calculating TRI correctly, the steps are as follows:

Citations are marked clearly under "Stats overview", with a weight of 0.5.

Recommendations refer only to Publications, with a weight of 0.25, and differ from Recommendations reported under "Stats overview", which also include Recommendations for Q&A.

Reads refer to Full-text Reads (with a weight of 0.15) and Other Reads (with a weight of 0.05) by RG members, and differ from Reads reported under "Stats overview", which also include Reads for Q&A.

There is no doubt that the h-index should be used in the equation to calculate TRI as the h-index is the most widely-used indicator of academic research quality.

With the inclusion of the h-index in the equaiton, TRI would be a superior indicator of academic research quality.

Agrees with Prof Michael John McAleer viewpoint regarding the inclusion of h-index in the TRI system, which would incorporate the researcher's academic research quality further.

Dear Muhammad Saad Khan :

Thank you very much for your thoughtful answer.

I agree that the invaluable suggestion of Michael John McAleer to include the h-index in the calculation of TRI would make the improved TRI a very useful measure of academic research quality.

Many academics do not seem to understand the concept or definition of the h-index as a matrix representation of Citations balanced against Publications.

On the other hand, TRI is a linear combination of four factors, namely Citation, Recommendations, and two types of Reads by RG members, with given weights for each.

Anyone who understands elementary school arithmetic can calculate TRI from the data provided, and also understand its meaning.

The h-index is certainly the most-widely used measure of academic research quality, even though it does not seem to be clearly understood by every academic.

TRI is easier to understand and calculate than the h-index, especially if you can add and subtract.

Dear Luciano da F. Costa :

Thank you for your interesting Answer regarding quantification, modelling and mapping.

Interesting....... following

Dear Elsaid Elashry :

Thank you for your interest in the Question.

The h-index is a measure of research quality, impact and productivity as it matrix balances Publications against Citations.

TRI is a function of Citations, Publication Recommendations, and Publication Reads by RG members.

An h-index version of TRI that matrix balances Publications against Citations, Publication Recommendations, and Publication Reads by RG members, would be strictly comparable to the h-index.

The h-index is better and more acceptable.

Dear Ilhami Unluoglu :

Thank you for a clear and direct Answer.

Dear Michael John McAleer:

Thank you for the clarification of the h-index and TRI, and especially for your novel suggestion to define a new and broader h-type index that is based on TRI.

For non active members with citation h-index good, active members with citation h-index is very very good, for active member with less citation(like me) TRI is good

Dear Mahavir Balmukund Varma :

Thank you for the helpful Answer regarding the h-index and TRI.

I agree with Dr, Mahavir Balmukund Varma

Both TRI and the h-index are based on Citations of published papers.

Dear Elsaid Elashry :

Thank you for the two interesting Answers about TRI and the h-index.

TRI has an internal inconsistency in that Citations include self cites, whereas it is not possible to record Reads and Recommendations of your own publications.

Just as the h-index is reported with and without self citations, TRI should also be reported with and without self citations.

An associated TRI-index that matrix balances Publications against TRI should be reported with and without self citations.

I agree with Dr, Michael John McAleer

To Michael John McAleer and Elker Mohamed :

Thank you for your agreeable and helpful responses to this thread.

As stated on other threads, TRI has an internal inconsistency in that Citations include self cites, whereas it is not possible to record Reads and Recommendations of your own publications.

Just as the h-index is reported with and without self citations, TRI should also be reported with and without self citations.

An associated TRI-index that matrix balances Publications against TRI should be reported with and without self citations.