The h-index attempts to measure both the productivity and impact of the published work of a scholar. So, quality and quantity.
It is sometimes applied to the productivity and impact of a group of scientists (such as a department, university or country), and sometimes to a scholarly journal.
How is it calculated and what does it actually mean?
The h-index:
A scientist has index h if h of his/her Np papers have at least h citations each, and the other (Np-h) papers have no more than h citations each.
Well, if you list all of an author's publications from most cited to least cited, and number them, there will be a point where the number in the list is greater than the number of citations for that article, like this:
Paper 6 only has 4 citations, so this researcher's h-index is 5.
There are about a million problems with the h-index. It is still regarded as the single best measure for scholarly impact.
Some of the many things that can make the h-index misleading are:
- It doesn't take into account very highly cited papers. For example, another scholar could have a h-index of five, but have each of their top 5 papers cited only 5 times!
- The h-index does not account for the number of authors of a paper. It gets counted as your paper even if you are one of 10 authors.
- The h-index does not account for the typical number of citations in different fields.
- The h-index means that scientists with a short career (fewer publications) are at a disadvantage, no matter how influential one paper might be
- The h-index does not consider the context of citations
- The h-index can be manipulated through self-citations
Next time we will look at some of these, and how they might be useful to researchers whose h-index is not so flash on its own.
No comments:
Post a Comment