Compare methods
Review your selected methods side by side; rows that differ are highlighted.
| m-Quotient (Hirsch m)× | g-Index (Egghe)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Field | Bibliometrics | Bibliometrics |
| Family | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Year of origin≠ | 2005 | 2006 |
| Originator≠ | Jorge E. Hirsch | Leo Egghe |
| Type≠ | Career-length-normalized author impact rate | Author-level cumulative-citation impact index |
| Seminal source≠ | Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. DOI ↗ | Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152. DOI ↗ |
| Aliases | Hirsch m-quotient, m-parameter, h-index per year | Egghe g-index, Egghe index, g index |
| Related | 3 | 3 |
| Summary≠ | The m-quotient, defined by Jorge Hirsch in the same 2005 paper that introduced the h-index, normalizes an author's h-index by the length of their scientific career. Because the h-index can only grow over time and never decreases, raw h-values systematically favor senior researchers and make it unfair to compare early-career scientists with established ones. The m-quotient divides the h-index by the number of years since the researcher's first publication, yielding a rate of impact accumulation per year. Hirsch proposed rough benchmarks on this scale, suggesting that a sustained value near 1 characterizes a successful scientist, near 2 an outstanding one, and near 3 a truly exceptional figure, making the m-quotient a tool for comparing researchers at different career stages. | The g-index, introduced by Leo Egghe in 2006, is an author-level bibliometric indicator designed to repair a structural weakness of Hirsch's h-index: its insensitivity to the size of the most-cited papers. Where the h-index caps the credit any single paper can earn at h, the g-index lets exceptionally cited articles raise an author's score. It is defined as the largest number g such that the g most-cited papers together accumulate at least g-squared citations. Because it rests on cumulative rather than per-paper citation counts, the g-index always equals or exceeds the h-index and rewards researchers whose impact is concentrated in a few landmark works as well as those with broad, steady output. |
| ScholarGateDataset ↗ |
|
|