  The recently proposed Euclidean index offers a novel approach to measure the
citation impact of academic authors, in particular as an alternative to the
h-index. 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.
