The first-author indices are certainly an interesting idea. One might ask whether such indices would be as monotonic measures as the conventional ones. Most would agree that the higher the h-index, the better, but this might not be the case with the f, f10, or fh indices. For example, I might put my tongue in cheek and ask if having an extremely high first-author index could correlate positively with one being a sociopath.

It might also be interesting to look into a two-dimensional measure that combines the standard index (h, i10, or full citation count) with its first-author counterpart. Maybe such a two-dimensional measure would even have significant predictive power regarding, say, the researcher's academic position.

Slight complications might arise from the convention of using simple alphabetic ordering in certain fields or more generally in the case of large collaboration projects. Also, occasionally the first two or more authors are declared to have contributed equally. Of course, these situations are already somewhat problematic due to the current citing conventions that always favor the first author.

I wouldn't be surprised if there already existed research into various indices of the first-author type, and I would be interested to hear about them.

The first-author indices are certainly an interesting idea. One might ask whether such indices would be as monotonic measures as the conventional ones. Most would agree that the higher the h-index, the better, but this might not be the case with the f, f10, or fh indices. For example, I might put my tongue in cheek and ask if having an extremely high first-author index could correlate positively with one being a sociopath.

It might also be interesting to look into a two-dimensional measure that combines the standard index (h, i10, or full citation count) with its first-author counterpart. Maybe such a two-dimensional measure would even have significant predictive power regarding, say, the researcher's academic position.

Slight complications might arise from the convention of using simple alphabetic ordering in certain fields or more generally in the case of large collaboration projects. Also, occasionally the first two or more authors are declared to have contributed equally. Of course, these situations are already somewhat problematic due to the current citing conventions that always favor the first author.

I wouldn't be surprised if there already existed research into various indices of the first-author type, and I would be interested to hear about them.

Good response from Pekko highlighting the fact that author order is not always a level playing field nor an accurate interpretation of actual contribution. In the first instance, unscrupulous Research Higher Degree supervisors may claim first authorship. Secondly, Research Assistants (who may perform the majority of the data collection and data analysis), if they are acknowledged at all, are unlikely to be named first author. At the other end of the author order - the final author is often the 'consultant' author. They are the ones most likely to already have the established h-index.

I agree with Pekko and Dean. Over the decades, I've observed various committee members trample grad students to scavenge their works in order to gain some type of publication.

Presentation Journal Impact Factors, Researcher h-index, How to improve r...

I think this is a completely logic and novel idea. We need to find more ways to express scientific and research influence and supplement current scientific scorings.

I feel that an f-index is way past due; for example, I have 6 publications currently, but 5 of those are first author. If we compare my output to that of a scientist with 10 publications, but only 2 first author contributions, would that not mean that we are at the least similar in terms of our productivity? The pure "number of papers" count, or even the h-index, I think is flawed, at best.

I understand the points made regarding collaborations where the first two authors contribute equally, or that in some disciplines authorship is alphabetized. In my field, however, first and last authorship places are considered the most valuable. Maybe an f-index is not something that would be considered in, say, physics or mathematics, but rahter highly valuable in biology. An indices does not necessarily have to be used across all disciplines.

I respectfully offer the idea that we have enough work to do to get our research published and there is no time for us to bother with author indexes. There are so many factors that influence whether a person is a first author (or anywhere in a pecking order of authors) or a sole author. Team researchers and those who publish about science write short articles (up to 3,500 words long) while others may do solitary or partnered research writing articles that sometimes go up to 10,000 words. How do we achieve equity? I respectfully recommend that we just get on with it and get published and focus on the amazing things we do rather than on the amazingness of being a first or last author.

We definitely need to take care about how our work is visible through all the indexes as the people who assess our work mostly rely on them

But being first author only means you are productive by yourself. It is also a quality to be able to supervise efficiently other people and bring them to publish