Introduction: The need to evaluate the relevance or value of scientific research for the scientific community and society using objective criteria has led to a generalization of the use of indexes -directly or indirectly- based on accounting for the number of times that published research results are cited by other researchers. However, the consistency of these indexes is challenged by an increasing number of experts. This paper reviews the existing indices, highlighting several contradictions, and explains two alternative indexes which provide a more consistent assessment of relevance based on the received citation.

Method: A formal or axiomatic method is followed, stating a system of axioms based on contri-butions in the framework of economic theory. In addition, an empirical test is carried out by re-viewing two samples of journals and comparing the results of the most commonly used indexes against the proposed indexes.

Analysis & Results: While no currently used index fulfils the proposed axioms, two indexes are explained that satisfy all the axioms. Besides, the empirical review shows that proposed indexes have high correlations with the most relevant variables and most currently used indexes.

Conclusions: The axiomatic approach allows us to highlight some important shortcomings of the indices currently used for citation evaluation, as well as the greater consistency of the two herein proposed indices.