November 2025, Volume 3, Issue 11

Author

Raju Vaishya, Abhishek Vaish, Vijaya Bhaskar Potuganti and Karthikeyan P Iyengar

Abstract

The h-index, introduced in 2005, has become a dominant metric in evaluating medical researchers and journals. Celebrated for balancing productivity and citation impact, it remains widely used in tenure, funding, and publication decisions. However, its limitations including disciplinary bias, disadvantages for early-career scholars, gender inequities, and insensitivity to societal impact which raise concerns about fairness and innovation. While offering utility, the h-index risks oversimplifying scholarly value into a numbers game. Alternatives such as g-index, m-quotient, field normalization, and altmetrics, along with holistic frameworks like DORA, provide more nuanced assessments. Redefining impact beyond citations is essential for advancing equitable medical academia.