Abstract Purpose Scientometric indicators provide a more comprehensive assessment of scientists and organizations. Conventional (e.g. the h-index) and alternative indexes are available to carry out these evaluations. Despite their advantages these indexes do not differentiate articles published by an author in different fields of research and they do not facilitate identification of the impact of an author's most cited articles in specific fields. We propose two indexes to measure the researcher's impact in a particular field based on citation counts to the author's most cited articles related to keywords. Design/methodology/approach We have considered two aspects: the representativeness of an author's most cited publications related to keywords and a simple mathematical form. Two variants were defined: Absolute Author's Impact index, which compares the research impact of a scientist with peers in a specific field and Relative Author's Impact index, which assesses the impact of an author's most cited works relative to the total contributions. Findings We evaluate the indexes for the case study of Quantum Information. Three keywords were considered. The results applying our indices were different from the application of conventional ones such as the h-index. The analysis of the case study suggests that combining both indices provides detailed assessment of scholar influence. Research limitations Only publications encompassed in the Science Citation Index were considered. The number of selected articles was three; it would be convenient to explore the behavior for 5–10 articles. We have not considered differences between subscription-based articles and Open Access ones. Practical implications This proposal aligns with trends favoring evaluation based on representative works rather than simple metrics. These indexes offer a solution for evaluating interdisciplinary researchers and identifying key contributors in specific fields, addressing limitations of conventional and alternatives metrics. Originality/value The proposal enhances existing tools to evaluate scientist including novel methodologies.
Zhou et al. (2026) studied this question.