Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Understanding and calculating research impact metrics
.claude/skills/brycewang-stanford-h-index-guide/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 60% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 97% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 75% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 23% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 100% | 0% |
Understand, calculate, and responsibly interpret bibliometric indicators including h-index, impact factor, and related metrics.
The h-index (Hirsch index) is defined as: a researcher has an h-index of h if h of their papers have each been cited at least h times.
Example: If a researcher has published 20 papers with citation counts 120, 80, 55, 40, 22, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 5, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0], their h-index is 10 (10 papers with at least 10 citations each).
pythondef calculate_h_index(citation_counts): """Calculate h-index from a list of citation counts.""" sorted_counts = sorted(citation_counts, reverse=True) h = 0 for i, count in enumerate(sorted_counts): if count >= i + 1: h = i + 1 else: break return h # Example citations = [120, 80, 55, 40, 22, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 5, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0] print(f"h-index: {calculate_h_index(citations)}") # Output: 10
| Metric | Definition | Advantage | |--------|-----------|-----------| | h-index | h papers with >= h citations | Simple, robust to outliers | | i10-index | Number of papers with >= 10 citations | Intuitive threshold (Google Scholar uses this) | | g-index | Largest g such that top g papers have >= g^2 total citations | Rewards highly cited papers more | | m-quotient | h-index divided by years since first publication | Normalizes for career length | | hI-norm | h-index divided by average number of co-authors | Adjusts for team size |
pythondef calculate_g_index(citation_counts): """Calculate g-index from citation counts.""" sorted_counts = sorted(citation_counts, reverse=True) cumulative = 0 g = 0 for i, count in enumerate(sorted_counts): cumulative += count if cumulative >= (i + 1) ** 2: g = i + 1 return g def calculate_i10_index(citation_counts): """Calculate i10-index.""" return sum(1 for c in citation_counts if c >= 10) print(f"g-index: {calculate_g_index(citations)}") # Output: 19 print(f"i10-index: {calculate_i10_index(citations)}") # Output: 10
Published annually by Clarivate in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). The 2-year impact factor for year Y is:
JIF(Y) = (Citations in Y to articles published in Y-1 and Y-2)
/ (Number of citable items published in Y-1 and Y-2)| Metric | Provider | Window | Notable Features | |--------|----------|--------|------------------| | Impact Factor | Clarivate (JCR) | 2-year or 5-year | Gold standard, subscription only | | CiteScore | Scopus (Elsevier) | 4-year | Free, includes all document types | | SJR (Scimago) | Scopus data | 3-year | Weights citations by journal prestige (PageRank-like) | | SNIP | Scopus data | 3-year | Normalizes for citation potential of each field | | h5-index | Google Scholar | 5-year | Free, h-index applied to a journal |
pythonimport requests # Using the OpenAlex API to get journal/source information journal_name = "Nature" response = requests.get( "https://api.openalex.org/sources", params={"filter": f"display_name.search:{journal_name}", "per_page": 5} ) results = response.json()["results"] for source in results: print(f"Name: {source['display_name']}") print(f" ISSN: {source.get('issn_l', 'N/A')}") print(f" Works count: {source.get('works_count', 'N/A')}") print(f" Cited by count: {source.get('cited_by_count', 'N/A')}") print(f" h-index: {source.get('summary_stats', {}).get('h_index', 'N/A')}") print(f" 2-year mean citedness: {source.get('summary_stats', {}).get('2yr_mean_citedness', 'N/A')}")
Google Scholar profiles automatically display h-index and i10-index. No calculation needed, but coverage is the broadest (includes non-peer-reviewed sources).
python# OpenAlex provides h-index directly in author profiles author_name = "Geoffrey Hinton" response = requests.get( "https://api.openalex.org/authors", params={"filter": f"display_name.search:{author_name}", "per_page": 1} ) author = response.json()["results"][0] print(f"h-index: {author['summary_stats']['h_index']}") print(f"i10-index: {author['summary_stats']['i10_index']}") print(f"2-year mean citedness: {author['summary_stats']['2yr_mean_citedness']}")
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) recommends:
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 13,688 | 39,012 | +185% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,283 | 3,644 | +60% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | pass→pass | 11,834 | 14,100 | +19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,221 | 3,892 | +75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 22,167 | 13,883 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,673 | 4,501 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 6,834 | 5,078 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,396 | 2,797 | +100% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 9,551 | 9,084 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,699 | 3,535 | +108% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 15,810 | 17,709 | +12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,745 | 5,059 | +84% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 7,047 | 5,963 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,373 | 2,909 | +112% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 14,615 | 15,192 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,623 | 4,237 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 11,555 | 12,492 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,965 | 3,879 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | 20,472 | 14,873 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,979 | 4,110 | +38% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 12,996 | 14,502 | +12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,969 | 3,745 | +90% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 11,212 | 9,973 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,790 | 3,260 | +82% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 16,761 | 16,982 | +1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,500 | 4,363 | +75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 13,677 | 14,603 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,350 | 4,287 | +82% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 11,568 | 9,470 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,881 | 3,549 | +89% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 12,183 | 9,863 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,879 | 3,701 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 10,839 | 4,775 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,670 | 2,427 | +45% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 13,610 | 14,651 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,001 | 3,957 | +98% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 6,942 | 4,009 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 996 | 2,309 | +132% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 19,406 | 16,730 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,804 | 4,470 | +59% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 20,612 | 15,622 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,019 | 4,212 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 17,517 | 19,326 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,733 | 5,171 | +89% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +9 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.