An empirical and theoretical critique of the Euclidean index

The recently proposed Euclidean index offers a novel approach to measure the citation impact of academic authors, in particular as an alternative to the hindex. We test if the index provides new, robust information, not covered by existing bibliometric indicators, discuss the measurement scale and the degree of distinction between analytical units the index offers. We find that the Euclidean index does not outperform existing indicators on these topics and that the main application of the index would be solely for ranking, which is not seen as a recommended practice.