Classification of constraints of Hirsch index as a bibliometrical indicator

Within the modern knowledge information ecosystem, the challenge of Hirsch index constraints clarification is relevant, particularly when the staffing, funding, and institutional decisions increasingly depend on quantitative metrics, and, at the same time, on emerging regulations of responsible assessment within the framework of DORA and CoARA initiatives and changing national regulative modes. The study purpose is to classify and to analyze thoroughly the key Hirsch index constraints and its modifications to be applied to assessment practices of science and specialized libraries, research divisions and expert boards. Methodologically, the authors accomplished the narrative review with the elements of knowledge domain review. Based on structured search in Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Crossref/OpenAlex and RSCI/core for 2020–2025, the authors analyze the peer-reviewed scientometrical studies, institutional reports, and regulative documents focused on Hirsch index. Through theme-quantitative grouping and critical synthesis of secondary data, the constraint groups are revealed, i.e. metric methodological and replicable, infrastructural ethical, and administrative regulative groups. The Hirsch index variability dependent on a database, index value volatility, sensitivity to self-citation, co-authorship, open access modes, retractions and retrieval protocol differences are demonstrated. Based on the comparison of the international and Russian agenda, the authors formulate the operational scheme of responsible Hirsch index application within the multitracer dossier comprising the normalization requirements, author contribution control, and data extraction proto col transparency. The originality of the study lies in the integration of separate research findings into the management framework to address the fast-changing metadata infrastructure and Russian segment character, thus expanding the instrumentality of library information analytics.

1. DORA reaches 25,000 signatures // San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). 03.06.2024. URL: https://sfdora.org/2024/06/03/dora-reaches-25000-signatures/ (accessed: 12.10.2025).

2. Ibrahim H., Liu F., Zaki Y., Rahwan T. Citation manipulation through citation mills and preprint servers // Scientific Reports. 2025. Vol. 15. Article 5480. 13 p. DOI 10.1038/s41598-025-88709-7.

3. Ioannidis J. P. A. August 2024 data-update for «Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators» // Elsevier Data Repository. 16.09.2024. Вер. 7. DOI 10.17632/btchxktzyw.7. URL: https://elsevier.digitalcommonsdata.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/7 (accessed: 12.10.2025).

4. Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors / Ioannidis J. P. A., Pezzullo A. M., Cristiano A., Boccia S. et al. // PLOS Biology. 2025. Vol. 23, № 1. e3002999. С. 1–11. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002999.

5. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories / Martín-Martín A., Orduna-Malea E., Thelwall M. et al. // Journal of Informetrics. 2018. Vol. 12, № 4. С. 1160–1177. DOI 10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002.

6. Comparison of datasets citation coverage in Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite / Gerasimov I., KC B., Mehrabian A. et al. // Scientometrics. 2024. Vol. 129. С. 3681–3704. DOI 10.1007/s11192-024-05073-5.

7. Comparison of h-индекс and other bibliometrics in Google Scholar and Scopus for articles published by translational science trainees / Davis L. D., Gilmore C. M., Vargus A. et al. // Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2025. Vol. 12. Art. 153. 4 с. DOI 10.1057/s41599-025-04462-2.

8. Vishwakarma R., Banerjee S. Billions at Stake: How Self-Citation Adjusted Metrics Can Transform Equitable Research Funding. arXiv (preprint), версия v3 от 11.05.2025. 8 с. DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20081. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20081 (accessed: 12.10.2025).

9. Liu M.-Y., Chien T.-W., Chou W. The Hirsch-индекс in self-citation rates with articles in Medicine (Baltimore): Bibliometric analysis of publications in two stages from 2018 to 2021 // Medicine (Baltimore). 2022. Vol. 101, № 45. e31609. DOI 10.1097/MD.0000000000031609.

10. Exploring Impact and Variability of Research Productivity Among Academic Orthopaedic Leaders / Farooq H., Gaetano A., Shivdasani K. et al. // JBJS Open Access. 2024. Vol. 9, № 4. e24.00085. DOI 10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00085.

11. Perneger T. Authorship and citation patterns of highly cited biomedical researchers: a cross-sectional study // Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2023. Vol. 8. Article 13. DOI 10.1186/s41073-023-00137-1. URL: https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-023-00137-1 (accessed: 12.10.2025).

12. Meho L. I., Akl E. A. Using Bibliometrics to Detect Unconventional Authorship Practices and Examine Their Impact on Global Research Metrics, 2019–2023. arXiv (preprint), v1 от 07.07.2024. 17 с. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18331. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18331 (accessed: 12.10.2025).

13. Dotson D. S. Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell? // Accountability in Research. 2025. Vol. 32, № 4. С. 612–635. DOI 10.1080/08989621.2024.2318790.

14. Fassin Y. The average citation ha-индекс // ISSI Newsletter. 2020. Т. 16, № 4. С. 64–67.

15. Samokhodkin E. V., Elzon A. A. Analysis of the Relationship Between Scientific Interest and Publication Dynamics on Artificial Intelligence in the Russian Federation (2020–2024) // Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2025. Vol. 52. P. 152–160. DOI 10.3103/S0147688225700182.

16. Koltun V., Hafner D. The h-индекс is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation // PLOS ONE. 2021. Т. 16, № 6. e0253397. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0253397.

17. Lippi G. Assessing the Reliability of Google Scholar in Predicting Scopus Citation Metrics // Top Italian Scientists Journal. 2025. Т. 25. HCDR6921. DOI 10.62684/HCDR6921.

18. Irreproducibility in searches of scientific literature: A comparative analysis / Pozsgai G., Lövei G. L., Vasseur L. et al. // Ecology and Evolution. 2021. Т. 11, № 21. С. 14658–14668. DOI 10.1002/ece3.8154.

19. Van Noorden R. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 – a new record // Nature. 2023. Т. 624, № 7992. С. 479–481. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8.

20. Springer Nature retracted 2,923 papers last year // Retraction Watch. 17.02.2025. URL: https://retractionwatch.com/2025/02/17/springer-nature-journal-retractions-2024/ (accessed: 12.10.2025).

21. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies / Baas J., Schotten M., Plume A. M. et al. // Quantitative Science Studies. 2020. Т. 1, № 1. С. 377–386. DOI 10.1162/qss_a_00019.

22. Reference Coverage Analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus [preprint] / Culbert J. H., Hobert A., Jahn N. et al. arXiv:2401.16359, v3. 2024. 20 с. DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2401.16359. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.16359 (accessed: 12.10.2025). Примеч.: в версии для печати – Scientometrics, 2025. DOI 10.1007/s11192-025-05293-3.

23. Koo M., Lin S.-C. An analysis of reporting practices in the top 100 cited health and medicine-related bibliometric studies from 2019 to 2021 based on a proposed guidelines // Heliyon. 2023. Т. 9, № 6. e16780. DOI 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16780.

24. Guidance for the Reporting of Bibliometric Analyses: A Scoping Review / Ng J. Y., Liu H., Masood M. // Quantitative Science Studies. 2025. Т. 6. С. 1–34. DOI 10.1162/qss.a.12.

25. Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements / Montazeri A., Mohammadi S., Hesari P. M. et al. // Systematic Reviews. 2023. Т. 12. Art. 239. DOI 10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2.

26. Rubinshtei`n A. Ia. O naukometricheskikh rei`tingakh i zhurnal`noi` VAKhanalii // E`konomicheskii` zhurnal Vy`sshei` shkoly` e`konomiki. 2023. T. 27, № 2. S. 290–305.

27. CoARA Reaches 700 Member Milestone // Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). 19.11.2024. URL: https://coara.org/news/coara-reaches-700-member-milestone/ (accessed: 13.10.2025).

28. Publikatcionnaia aktivnost` rossii`skikh ucheny`kh v novy`kh realiiakh // Institut statisticheskikh issledovanii` i e`konomiki znanii` NIU VSHE`. 11.12.2023. URL: https://issek.hse.ru/news/879121802.html (дата обращения: 13.10.2025).

29. Polischuk P. 2024 public data file now available, featuring new experimental formats // Crossref Blog. 14.05.2024. DOI 10.64000/33ahz-xyg07. URL: https://www.crossref.org/blog/2024-public-data-file-now-available-featuring-new-experimental-formats/ (accessed: 13.10.2025).

30. Hendricks G., Ofiesh L., Pentz E. A progress update and a renewed commitment to community // Crossref Blog. 12.12.2024. DOI 10.64000/bm6g0-gvy36. URL: https://www.crossref.org/blog/a-progress-update-and-a-renewed-commitment-to-community/ (accessed: 13.10.2025).

31. Library Research News: October 2024 Edition // Deakin University Library. 02.10.2024. URL: https://blogs.deakin.edu.au/article/library-research-news-october-2024-edition/ (accessed: 13.10.2025).

32. Geysen F. Discover OpenAlex: A free, open and global research tool // OpenScience blog (Wageningen University & Research). 08.12.2024. URL: https://weblog.wur.eu/openscience/openalex/ (accessed: 13.10.2025).

33. Reference coverage analysis of OpenAlex compared to Web of Science and Scopus / Culbert J. H., Hobert A., Jahn N. et al. // Scientometrics. 2025. Т. 130. С. 2475–2492. DOI 10.1007/s11192-025-05293-3.

34. Meadows A. Better Together: ORCID and Other Researcher Identifiers // The Scholarly Kitchen. 16.07.2025. URL: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/07/16/better-together-orcid-and-other-researcher-identifiers/ (accessed: 13.10.2025).

35. cOAlition S office. Plan S: 2023 Annual Review. 02.2024. 54 с. URL: https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/PlanS-2023-annual-review.pdf (accessed: 13.10.2025).

36. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). Open-Access Publishing in a Global Context. NSF 25–347. 06.08.2025. Alexandria, VA: U.S. National Science Foundation. 15 с. URL: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf25347/assets/nsf25347.pdf (accessed: 13.10.2025).

37. Hybrid Gold Open Access Citation Advantage in Clinical Medicine: Analysis of Hybrid Journals in the Web of Science / Saravudecha C., Na Thungfai D., Phasom C. et al. // Publications. 2023. Т. 11, № 2. Art. 21. 9 с. DOI 10.3390/publications11020021.

38. Timohovich A. N., Samohodkin E. V., E`l`zon A. A. Issledovanie kommunikatcionny`kh instrumentov dlia formirovaniia loial`nosti k nauchnoi` organizatcii // Sotciologiia nauki i tekhnologii`. 2025. T. 16, № 3. S. 201–221. DOI 10.24412/2079-0910-2025-3-201-221.

39. Chawla D. S. The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists // Nature.2024. Т. 632. С. 966. DOI 10.1038/d41586-024-01672-7.

40. Citation manipulation through citation mills and pre-print servers / Ibrahim H., Liu F., Zaki Y., Rahwan T. // Scientific Reports. 2025. Т. 15. Art. 5480. 13 с. DOI 10.1038/s41598-025-88709-7.

41. Examining bias perpetuation in academic search engines: An algorithm audit of Google and Semantic Scholar / Kacperski C., Bielig M., Makhortykh M. et al. // First Monday. 2024. Т. 29, № 11. С. 1–20. DOI 10.5210/fm.v29i11.13730.

42. Top publications // Google Scholar. URL: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues (accessed: 13.10.2025).

43. Samokhodkin E. V., Elzon A. A. Social Threats of Artificial Intelligence: Classification and Risk Assessment // Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2025. Vol. 52. P. 263–271. DOI 10.3103/S0147688225700674.

44. Samohodkin E. V., E`l`zon A. A. Podhody` k formalizatcii normativnogo povedeniia avtonomny`kh intellektual`ny`kh agentov // Iskusstvenny`i` intellekt i priniatie reshenii`. 2025. № 4. S. 35–46. DOI 10.14357/20718594250403.