Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract The h ‐index (Hirsch, 2005) is robust, remaining relatively unaffected by errors in the long tails of the citations‐rank distribution, such as typographic errors that short‐change frequently cited articles and create bogus additional records. This robustness, and the ease with which h ‐indices can be verified, support the use of a Hirsch‐type index over alternatives such as the journal impact factor. These merits of the h ‐index apply both to individuals and to journals.
Jerome K. Vanclay (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: