In spite of many critics about its limitation and bias, h-index is accepted widely as one of the most frequently used metrics to measure both the “quantity and quality” of scholarly output. My question here is about your experience and opinion regarding a less known metric, which is “Hirsch’s individual m”. This metric is calculated by dividing h-index of a scientist by the number of years that have passed since the first publication, with a score of approx.1 reflecting academic success, and a score of approx. 2 reflecting outstanding performance, while a score of approx.3 characterizing unique success, according to Hirsch’s paper.
Hirsch’s paper link: https://www.pnas.org/content/102/46/16569
I applied the h-index to neurosurgical institutions within the UK [PUBMED: 25998602]. I calculated th h-index for a given unit for varying time periods to look at historical rankings and also more recent comparisons of academic productivity of a given unit. Using 'Hirch's individual m' metric would be additionally interesting as it could be used to compare the rate of a units output by adjusting for varying time periods of units being in existence.
In regards to assessing individual academics productivity the 'm' metric would allow one to see those who have continual output over their career vs those who have had periods within their careers where they have published. An individuals 'm number' is probably the best way of predicting likely future output of a given researcher.
Thank you James for sharing your experience. Yes, the 'm' factor may help in the prediction of future output, provided that the pace of citations keeps growing with the growing number of publications.
Hirsch’s 2005 paper doesn't seem to mention individual m. Have a missed something, or is it discussed in a different paper?
Dear Colleague, in fact it does mention about it. You can check the link:
Article An Index to Quantify An Individual's Scientific Research Output