  The use of quantitative indicators of scientific productivity seems now quite
widespread for assessing researchers and research institutions. There is a
general perception, however, that these indicators are not necessarily
representative of the originality of the research carried out, being primarily
indicative of a more or less prolific scientific activity and of the size of
the targeted scientific subcommunity. We first discuss some of the drawbacks of
the broadly adopted $h$-index and of the fact that it represents, in an average
sense, an indicator derivable from the total number of citations. Then we
propose an indicator which, although not immune from biases, seems more in line
with the general expectations for quantifying what is typically considered
original work. Qualitative arguments on how different indicators may shape the
future of science are finally discussed.
