https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-022-04323-8
The paper linked above, recently published in Scientometrics, asserts the existence of four methodological problems in the use of the h-index to evaluate individual research performance. Yet its critique ultimately reduces to a long-recognized limitation—the neglect of co-authorship—calling into question both the originality and depth of the analysis.
Most notably, the author ignores several highly relevant and well-established contributions. No reference is made to the work of Koltun and Hafner, who had already provided strong empirical evidence for the accuracy and robustness of the fractional h-index—an alternative that directly addresses and overcomes key limitations of the conventional h-index, particularly in fields characterized by papers with dozens or even hundreds of co-authors https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2021/11/evaluating-researchers-in-fast-and.html
PS – The paper also overlooks a well-documented limitation of Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers list, namely its reliance on non-fractional counting methods, a flaw explicitly analyzed in recent work by Aksnes and Aagaard. This further underscores the author’s inadequate engagement with the current state of the literature. https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2021/05/another-nail-in-coffin-of-flawed.html
Pacheco-Torgal 