Quote From HazyJane:
The 'H index' is a measure which is applied to individual researchers. It is a slightly odd concept - it tells you the number, n, of that person's publications which have been cited at least n times. For example, I have my name on 4 publications of which one has never been cited, and three have been cited at least 3 times, so my H index is 3.
Both of them have their weaknesses, are subject to gaming and misinterpretation. For example, you can get rubbish papers in high impact journals, or vice versa. Equally, if you had someone who had published 10 papers, 8 of which had never been cited, but the other two papers had been cited 500+ times, they would still only have a H index of 2. So, in my opinion, they're kind of over-rated, but we're stuck with them.
Thanks HazyJane.
Ok, after reading some more from
http://goo.gl/8T0qG:
"‘The index h, defined as the number of papers with citation number greater
than or equal to h, is a useful index to characterise the scientific output of a
researcher.’ JE Hirsch"
also from
http://goo.gl/FyQgH
"a h-index of 20 means the researcher has 20 papers each of which has been cited 20+ times."
Assuming that I have 7 papers and the number following it is how many times it has been cited:
paper 1:10
paper 2:12
paper 3:15
paper 4:15
paper 5:14
paper 6:1
paper 7:0
My H here will be 5.
But if:
paper 1:2
paper 2:2
paper 3:2
paper 4:1
paper 5:2
paper 6:1
paper 7:200
Is my H 1?