Therefore, I composed a list of h-indices of my own, ordered by value. The choice of authors is biased to the Blue Obelisk and the CDK, has some personal touches (Buydens are Wehrens are my PhD supervisors) and some names that put the rest into perspective:
| query | h-index | #pubs |
| BENDER A | 41 | 222 |
| WILLETT P | 37 | 302 |
| GASTEIGER J | 33 | 212 |
| RZEPA HS | 25 | 236 |
| BUYDENS LMC | 18 | 108 |
| GLEN RC | 18 | 78 |
| WEHRENS R | 11 | 47 |
| MURRAY-RUST P* | 9 | 41 |
| STEINBECK C | 9 | 29 |
| FECHNER U | 6 | 12 |
| GUHA R | 4 | 24 |
| WILLIGHAGEN E* | 4 | 9 |
| WEGNER JK | 3 | 9 |
| LUTTMANN E | 2 | 4 |
Of course, there are many comments on this. Like any measurement, take into account the error. Sources of error include, but are not limited to, ambiguity in the query. The most notable example of this, I think, is Andreas Bender; I don't think he has been that successful :) Also, Rajarshi Guha's h-index was reported 6, but the list included two articles from the 70-ies and 80-ies, which I do not think are actually really his.
Feel free to suggest other names, query corrections, tips, and I will add or work on those too.
