Rejoinder to “Multiple versions of the <italic>h</italic>-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes”.

In a Letter to the Editor, the authors of this paper show, to highlight the practical risks of using the <italic>h</italic>-index, how academics’ data and bibliometric information can be misrepresented. In this rejoinder, we examine the comments offered in letters by Judit Bar-Ilan, Rodrigo Costas and Thomas Franssen, as well as Lutz Bornmann and Loet Leydesdorff, to offer additional insight and critique. This form of open debate about a topic that may potentially affect many academics is an excellent initiative by <italic>Scientometrics</italic>, and widens the possibilities of holding journal-based discussion forums rather than in informal journal clubs or blogs. We continue to believe that the <italic>h</italic>-index has some value by offering a crude measure of productivity, but not when used alone. How the accuracy of different <italic>h</italic>-indexes is calculated, and how <italic>h</italic>-index-based productivity is associated with academic quality are issues that merit greater research. Finally, we confirm that the Web of Science database search function for compound family names gives erroneous output which can disadvantage those academics with such family names. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]