A proposal for a quantitative indicator of original research output

TL;DR

This paper critiques existing quantitative measures of scientific productivity, especially the h-index, and proposes a new indicator aimed at better capturing the originality of research output.

Contribution

It introduces a novel quantitative indicator designed to more accurately reflect research originality compared to traditional metrics like the h-index.

Findings

The h-index has limitations in representing research originality.

The proposed indicator aligns better with the concept of originality.

Discussion on how indicators influence scientific progress.

Abstract

The use of quantitative indicators of scientific productivity seems now quite widespread for assessing researchers and research institutions. There is a general perception, however, that these indicators are not necessarily representative of the originality of the research carried out, being primarily indicative of a more or less prolific scientific activity and of the size of the targeted scientific subcommunity. We first discuss some of the drawbacks of the broadly adopted $h$-index and of the fact that it represents, in an average sense, an indicator derivable from the total number of citations. Then we propose an indicator which, although not immune from biases, seems more in line with the general expectations for quantifying what is typically considered original work. Qualitative arguments on how different indicators may shape the future of science are finally discussed.