h index corresponds to a scientist's h of his/her N papers that have been cited at least h times each, while the rest of the N papers have less than h citations each.
i10 index refers to the number of paper with 10 or more citations.
For the citations received and given a number of papers ranked in a decreasing order according to the citations received till now, the G-index is the biggest number such that the top G articles received (altogether) at least G2 (G square) citations. This index assists the h-index and gives more weight to the highly-cited papers.
i10 index refers to the number of paper with 10 or more citations.
For the citations received and given a number of papers ranked in a decreasing order according to the citations received till now, the G-index is the biggest number such that the top G articles received (altogether) at least G2 (G square) citations. This index assists the h-index and gives more weight to the highly-cited papers.
h index corresponds to a scientist's h of his/her N papers that have been cited at least h times each, while the rest of the N papers have less than h citations each.
The references provided in the previous answers by other colleagues help to see more details.
h - Index: The h-index is an author-level metric that attempts to measure both the productivity and citation impact of the publications of a scientist or scholar
i10-Index = the number of publications with at least 10 citations
he g-index is an index for quantifying productivity in science, based on publication record
Those indexes have transformed universities into third-rate tourist companies. My young colleagues constantly run from a conference to conference; they all quote each other, and they have impressive indexes. In my humble opinion, they know rather little, and they neglect teaching. I wrote several textbooks (years ago) which they still use in their courses; they do not write textbooks. But they all have much higher indexes than I have. This means nothing to me (I will retire soon). But it is ironical for me, because when I graduated, I started to work in the best tourist company in my country (Croatia). However, I decided to abandon nice life in tourism, and I went "into science". I am now ending my career at the department which has become a third-rate tourist company.
To depend completely on metrics for funding or promotions is not a good idea. What a happens if a scientist is setting up a lab or guiding the phd students ? So is not attending the conferences frequently or publishing profusely....
So these numbers should be considered with a pinch of salt....