"the average h-index of the 125 Nobel laureates
is approximately 6 times that of other researchers, while the average hu-index
is nearly 10 times. The larger difference brought by hu-index gives a
discriminative reputation to outstanding individuals”
The new index suggested in the recent paper above has some value but what is really amazing is that 16 years after Hirsh first suggested the h-index his paper has so far received more than 10.000 citations on scholar google. And if by 2008 Hirsch paper was cited more than 300 times a year in 2020 that number raised to more than 1300 citations meaning that the science community is even more obsessed with the quantification of the impact of researchers output.
PS - Yesterday the former Director for Research, Innovation and Skills at the Higher Education Funding Council for England just said that UK Research Excellence Framework should use metrics instead of experts panels to assess the research quality in several disciplines https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/creator-says-ref-should-swap-expert-panels-metrics-science And one needs not to be a genius to understand that if REF back in 2014 already cost 250 million pounds, that´s a lot of money that is not spend hiring researchers and funding important investigations. Especially because recent studies showed that for a high number of disciplines "metrics agree quite well with peer review and may offer an alternative to peer review"
