Doing Hirsch proud; shaping H-index in engineering sciences

The h-index concept has been analysed in aspects of a contemporary tendency of parameterisation of everything and as the potential measure of the knowledge progress, which recognises individuals, institutions and Engineering sub-disciplines that best generate new knowledge. Considerations have been presented at the level of universality of knowledge which implies permanent progress and on the base of careful thoughts of the domestic experience. The h-nature of things has been described, and several axiomatic characterisations of the Hirsch index have been gathered. The mechanism how to increase the h-index has been presented. Some similarities between h-index and the journal impact factor (JIF) have been stressed. Also the universal role of H-index in ranking countries in all areas and in Engineering has been exampled in extended tables. The Glänzel’s model which connects the h-index with two fundamental scientometric indicators: number of publications and the rate of citation, has been analysed. Following the Microsoft Academic Search, the lists of 15 top scientists from various academic disciplines and separately in Engineering have been composed. It has been found that the population of the best keeps basically the same relations between the h-index and a number of publication, and between the h-index and a citation number. However, even the best in Engineering should publish 2 times a year or more papers to receive the same h-index as top scientists in overall domains. The h-index distribution of domestic Engineering sub-disciplines has been presented and analysed in statistic categories. The suitable hhistograms and the cumulative probability density function (CPDF) have been elaborated for 21 sub-disciplines and thereupon the Engineering sub-disciplines have been arranged into three clusters. It has been demonstrated that Engineering as the whole and Engineering sub-disciplines are underestimated, compared to other academic disciplines. The adequate normalisation factors have been suggested. Several other conclusions considered the h,H-indices as the measure of the knowledge progress addressed to individual researchers and to collective, e.g., journals, institutions, organisations, countries, adequately have been written. The h,H-indices are the general measure of the position of the given subject (person or organisation) but cannot be universal