Let's Analyse What Makes a Good H-Index Score
Mar 7, 2023 |
8 Mins ReadUnderstanding H-Index
The H-index is a metric that measures an author’s productivity by the number of publications that have published their work and the impact of the work based on the number of citations their research receives. In general, authors with a higher h-index score will have produced more research and therefore published more content which, to their peers, creates their reputation of credibility.
This quantitative metric was brought about in 2005 by Argentinian-American professor of physics Jorge E. Hirsch to analyse publication data.
Finding an author’s H-index
There are multiple platforms on which you may find an author’s H-index score. To name a few, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of science etc. However, in this blog, we’ll take you through the process of locating an author’s H-index on google scholar as shown below.
- Visit Google Scholar
- Enter the author’s name in the search bar
- If a profile exists for the author, it will appear at the top of the search results, click the author's name, and their profile page will open.
- View their h-index on the right side of the screen.
Calculating H-Index Score
The H-index measures the importance, significance, and impact of research contributions. To calculate an author’s H-index, you’d need to create a list of all publications in which the author has been published and rank them in descending order of the citations his/her work has received. Understanding the H-index of an author is an indication of their credibility, so that brings us to the question:
What is a good H-index score?
J. E. Hirsch (2005) observes that Noble Prize winners in physics have an average H-index score of 30, this highlights that Noble prize winners are selected with a scientific body of research and a history of contributional impact. This proved that successful scientists do need a good h-index score.
Hirsch stated that after 20 years of research; an H-index score of 20 was good, 40 was outstanding and 60 was truly exceptional.
Does the H-index score evaluate an author in all important aspects?
Undoubtedly, it is appealing to have a singular value that measures an author's productivity and impact. Many committees have opted the H-index as their metric of choice as well. Bordons and Costas (2007) stated that the key advantage of the H-index metric is that it measures the scientific output of a researcher with objectivity. This plays a vital role in making decisions about promotions, fund allocation and awarding prizes.
However, there are suggestions that H-index does not take other important variables into account. According to Enago Academy (2022), a higher H-index score does not indicate better quality of research. The article further elaborates that the H-index score does not account for an author’s career stage, research and journal quality and contribution to the scientific community. The score also has potential unintended negative impacts; for example, a younger researcher may not challenge a researcher with a high h-index score and researchers aiming for a higher h-index may only pursue popular fields of science.
Furthermore, BiteSizeBio (2021) states that the H-index score does not take into account the number of authors on a research paper. If a paper has 1 author with about 100 citations, this researcher deserves more recognition than a paper that had 10 authors with similar citations.
The fluctuation of the H-index score
The H-index score does not decrease unless the paper is redacted or deleted. Older papers may continue to gain new citations, and the h-index can potentially increase indefinitely, even after the researcher has stopped actively publishing.
What is the difference between H-index and the journal impact factor?
The Journal Impact Factor metric is used to evaluate the importance of a journal within its respective field or discipline. In simpler terms, it measures the frequency of citations the average article within this journal receives. On the contrary, the H-index metric is used to measure the productivity and quality of an author’s publications. While they are both measures of research quality, they measure different aspects of research and can therefore not be compared.
To conclude, having a good H-index score is impressive. However, every author’s research contrasts with that of another. There are many more aspects to investigate when evaluating a researcher.
Discover millions of e-books, journal articles, proceedings and more on Zendy.
Research Integrity, Partnership, and Societal Impact
Research integrity extends beyond publication to include how scholarship is discovered, accessed, and used, and its societal impact depends on more than editorial practice alone. In practice, integrity and impact are shaped by a web of platforms and partnerships that determine how research actually travels beyond the press. University press scholarship is generally produced with a clear public purpose, speaking to issues such as education, public health, social policy, culture, and environmental change, and often with the explicit aim of informing practice, policy, and public debate. Whether that aim is realised increasingly depends on what happens to research once it leaves the publishing workflow. Discovery platforms, aggregators, library consortia, and technology providers all influence this journey. Choices about metadata, licensing terms, ranking criteria, or the use of AI-driven summarisation affect which research is surfaced, how it is presented, and who encounters it in the first place. These choices can look technical or commercial on the surface, but they have real intellectual and social consequences. They shape how scholarship is understood and whether it can be trusted beyond core academic audiences. For university presses, this changes where responsibility sits. Editorial quality remains critical, but it is no longer the only consideration. Presses also have a stake in how their content is discovered, contextualised, and applied in wider knowledge ecosystems. Long-form and specialist research is particularly exposed here. When material is compressed or broken apart for speed and scale, nuance can easily be lost, even when the intentions behind the system are positive. This is where partnerships start to matter in a very practical way. The conditions under which presses work with discovery services directly affect whether their scholarship remains identifiable, properly attributed, and anchored in its original context. For readers using research in teaching, healthcare, policy, or development settings, these signals are not decorative. They are essential to responsible use. Zendy offers one example of how these partnerships can function differently. As a discovery and access platform serving researchers, clinicians, and policymakers in emerging and underserved markets, Zendy is built around extending reach without undermining trust. University press content is surfaced with clear attribution, structured metadata, and rights-respecting access models that preserve the integrity of the scholarly record. Zendy works directly with publishers to agree how content is indexed, discovered, and, where appropriate, summarised. This gives presses visibility into and control over how their work appears in AI-supported discovery environments, while helping readers approach research with a clearer sense of scope, limitations, and authority. From a societal impact perspective, this matters. Zendy’s strongest usage is concentrated in regions where access to trusted scholarship has long been uneven, including parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. In these contexts, university press research is not being read simply for academic interest. It is used in classrooms, clinical settings, policy development, and capacity-building efforts, areas closely connected to the Sustainable Development Goals. Governance really sits at the heart of this kind of model. Clear and shared expectations around metadata quality, content provenance, licensing boundaries, and the use of AI are what make the difference between systems that encourage genuine engagement and those that simply amplify visibility without depth. Metadata is not just a technical layer: it gives readers the cues they need to understand what they are reading, where it comes from, and how it should be interpreted. AI-driven discovery and new access models create real opportunities to broaden the reach of university press publishing and to connect trusted scholarship with communities that would otherwise struggle to access it. But reach on its own does not equate to impact. When context and attribution are lost, the value of the research is diminished. Societal impact depends on whether work is understood and used with care, not simply on how widely it circulates. For presses with a public-interest mission, active participation in partnerships like these is a way to carry their values into a more complex and fast-moving environment. As scholarship is increasingly routed through global, AI-powered discovery systems, questions of integrity, access, and societal relevance converge. Making progress on shared global challenges requires collaboration, shared responsibility, and deliberate choices about the infrastructures that connect research to the wider world. For university presses, this is not a departure from their mission, but a continuation of it, with partnerships playing an essential role. FAQ How do platforms and partnerships affect research integrity?Discovery platforms, aggregators, and technology partners influence which research is surfaced, how it’s presented, and who can access it. Choices around metadata, licensing, and AI summarization directly impact understanding and trust. Why are university press partnerships important?Partnerships allow presses to maintain attribution, context, and control over their content in discovery systems, ensuring that research remains trustworthy and properly interpreted. How does Zendy support presses and researchers?Zendy works with publishers to surface research with clear attribution, structured metadata, and rights-respecting access, preserving integrity while extending reach to underserved regions. For partnership inquiries, please contact: Sara Crowley Vigneau Partnership Relations Manager Email: s.crowleyvigneau@zendy.io .wp-block-image img { max-width: 65% !important; margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; }
Beyond Publication. Access as a Research Integrity Issue
If research integrity now extends beyond publication to include how scholarship is discovered and used, then access is not a secondary concern. It is foundational. In practice, this broader understanding of integrity quickly runs into a hard constraint: access. A significant percentage of academic publishing is still behind paywalls, and traditional library sales models fail to serve institutions with limited budgetsor uneven digital infrastructure. Even where university libraries exist, access is often delayed or restricted to narrow segments of the scholarly record. The consequences are structural rather than incidental. When researchers and practitioners cannot access the peer-reviewed scholarship they need, it drops out of local research agendas, teaching materials as well as policy conversations. Decisions are then shaped by whatever information is most easily available, not necessarily by what is most rigorous or relevant. Over time, this weakens citation pathways, limits regional participation in scholarly debate, and reinforces global inequity in how knowledge is visible, trusted, and amplified. The ongoing success of shadow libraries highlights this misalignment: Sci-Hub reportedly served over 14 million monthly users in 2025, indicating sustained and widespread demand for academic research that existing access models continue to leave unmet. This is less about individual behaviour than about a system that consistently fails to deliver essential knowledge where it is needed most. The picture looks different when access barriers are reduced: usage data from open and reduced-barrier initiatives consistently show strong engagement across Asia and Africa, particularly in fields linked to health, education, social policy, and development. These patterns highlight how emerging economies rely on high-quality publishing in contexts where it directly impacts professional practice and public decision-making. From a research integrity perspective, this is important. When authoritative sources are inaccessible, alternative materials step in to fill the gap. The risk is not only exclusion, but distortion. Inconsistent, outdated, or unverified sources become more influential precisely because they are easier to obtain. Misinformation takes hold most easily where trusted knowledge is hardest to reach. Addressing access is about more than widening readership or improving visibility, it is about ensuring that high-quality scholarship can continue to shape understanding and decisions in the contexts it seeks to serve. For university presses committed to the public good, this challenge sits across discovery systems, licensing structures, technology platforms, and the partnerships that increasingly determine how research is distributed, interpreted, and reused. If research integrity now extends across the full lifecycle of scholarship, then sustaining it requires collective responsibility and shared frameworks. How presses engage with partners, infrastructures, and governance mechanisms becomes central to protecting both trust and impact. FAQ: What challenges exist in current access models?Many academic works remain behind paywalls, libraries face budget and infrastructure constraints, and access delays or restrictions can prevent researchers from using peer-reviewed scholarship effectively. What happens when research is inaccessible?When trusted sources are hard to reach, alternative, inconsistent, or outdated materials often fill the gap, increasing the risk of misinformation and weakening citation pathways. How does Zendy help address access challenges?Zendy provides affordable and streamlined access to high-quality research, helping scholars, practitioners, and institutions discover and use knowledge without traditional barriers. For partnership inquiries, please contact:Sara Crowley VigneauPartnership Relations ManagerEmail:s.crowleyvigneau@zendy.io .wp-block-image img { max-width: 65% !important; margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; }
Beyond Peer Review. Research Integrity in University Press Publishing
University presses play a distinctive role in advancing research integrity and societal impact. Their publishing programmes are closely aligned with public-interest research in the humanities, social sciences, global health, education, and environmental studies, disciplines that directly inform policy and progress toward the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This work typically prioritises depth, context, and long-term understanding, often drawing on regional expertise and interdisciplinary approaches rather than metrics-driven outputs. Research integrity is traditionally discussed in terms of editorial rigour, peer review, and ethical standards in the production of scholarship. These remain essential. But in an era shaped by digital platforms and AI-led discovery, they are no longer sufficient on their own. Integrity now also depends on what happens after publication: how research is surfaced, interpreted, reduced, and reused. For university presses, this shift is particularly significant. Long-form scholarship, a core strength of press programmes, is increasingly encountered through abstracts, summaries, extracts, and automated recommendations rather than sustained reading. As AI tools mediate more first encounters with research, meaning can be subtly altered through selection, compression, or loss of context. These processes are rarely neutral. They encode assumptions about relevance, authority, and value. This raises new integrity questions. Who decides which parts of a work are highlighted or omitted? How are disciplinary nuance and authorial intent preserved when scholarship is summarised? What signals remain to help readers understand scope, limitations, or evidentiary weight? This isn’t to say that AI-driven discovery is inherently harmful, but it does require careful oversight. If university press scholarship is to continue informing research, policy, and public debate in meaningful ways, it needs to remain identifiable, properly attributed, and grounded in its original framing as it moves through increasingly automated discovery systems. In this context, research integrity extends beyond how scholarship is produced to include how it is processed, surfaced and understood. For presses with a public-interest mission, research integrity now extends across the full journey of a work, from how it is published to how it is discovered, interpreted and used. FAQ Can Zendy help with AI-mediated research discovery?Yes. Zendy’s tools help surface, summarise, and interpret research accurately, preserving context and authorial intent even when AI recommendations are used. Does AI discovery harm research, or can it be beneficial?AI discovery isn’t inherently harmful—it can increase visibility and accessibility. However, responsible use is essential to prevent misinterpretation or loss of nuance, ensuring research continues to inform policy and public debate accurately. How does Zendy make research more accessible?Researchers can explore work from multiple disciplines, including humanities, social sciences, global health, and environmental studies, all in one platform with easy search and AI-powered insights. For partnership inquiries, please contact:Sara Crowley Vigneau Partnership Relations Manager Email: s.crowleyvigneau@zendy.io .wp-block-image img { max-width: 65% !important; margin-left: auto !important; margin-right: auto !important; }
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom