Comments on: Why the h-index is little use http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:56:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: The H-index is Redundant… « In the Dark http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-35674 The H-index is Redundant… « In the Dark Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:51:33 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-35674 [...] correlation between H index and the square root of total citation numbers has been remarked upon before, but it is good to see it confirmed for the particular field of [...] [...] correlation between H index and the square root of total citation numbers has been remarked upon before, but it is good to see it confirmed for the particular field of [...]

]]> By: Calculating my H Index With Free Available Tools – ChemConnector Blog http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-30559 Calculating my H Index With Free Available Tools – ChemConnector Blog Sun, 24 Apr 2011 03:20:01 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-30559 [...] some of the views of the H-Index measure as this has already been done on a number of blogs (1,2 and 3). Rather, I am going to see what freely available tools I can use to compute my [...] [...] some of the views of the H-Index measure as this has already been done on a number of blogs (1,2 and 3). Rather, I am going to see what freely available tools I can use to compute my [...]

]]> By: Measuring Reviewers - The Quantum Pontiff http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-26972 Measuring Reviewers - The Quantum Pontiff Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:14:29 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-26972 [...] on the writers of a sub par paper? (That’s a joke people.) Reading Michael Nielsen’s post taking on the h-index (Michael’s posting more these days!), reminded me of a problem [...] [...] on the writers of a sub par paper? (That’s a joke people.) Reading Michael Nielsen’s post taking on the h-index (Michael’s posting more these days!), reminded me of a problem [...]

]]> By: Index Rerum | Phasing http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-26197 Index Rerum | Phasing Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:24:04 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-26197 [...] it has been claimed that this index can be fitted well by a formula h ~ sqrt(T)/2 where T is the total number of [...] [...] it has been claimed that this index can be fitted well by a formula h ~ sqrt(T)/2 where T is the total number of [...]

]]> By: Index Rerum « In the Dark http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-26194 Index Rerum « In the Dark Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:13:20 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-26194 [...] it has been claimed that this index can be fitted well by a formula h ~ sqrt(T)/2 where T is the total number of [...] [...] it has been claimed that this index can be fitted well by a formula h ~ sqrt(T)/2 where T is the total number of [...]

]]> By: Vanity Index II | Phasing http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-24790 Vanity Index II | Phasing Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:20:30 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-24790 [...] Michael Nielsen points out that the h-index is essentially redundant, because for most scientists it is nearly equal to half the square root of their total citations. So the h-index doesn’t carry any more information that the total number of citations. [...] [...] Michael Nielsen points out that the h-index is essentially redundant, because for most scientists it is nearly equal to half the square root of their total citations. So the h-index doesn’t carry any more information that the total number of citations. [...]

]]> By: Vanity Index II « Calcutta Chronicles http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-24776 Vanity Index II « Calcutta Chronicles Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:20:10 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-24776 [...] Michael Nielsen points out that the h-index is essentially redundant, because for most scientists it is nearly equal to half the square root of their total citations. So the h-index doesn’t carry any more information that the total number of citations. [...] [...] Michael Nielsen points out that the h-index is essentially redundant, because for most scientists it is nearly equal to half the square root of their total citations. So the h-index doesn’t carry any more information that the total number of citations. [...]

]]> By: Sharbani Ranjan Kundu http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-21808 Sharbani Ranjan Kundu Tue, 05 May 2009 05:31:16 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-21808 I find Michael Nielsen's 'Why H-Index is of little use' interesting. No index can contain all the information needed of a situation. Any index is only indicative and is a device only for a sound judgment. For making something like a conclusive judgment many indices should be simultaneously considered. Say for example one can have four numbers of statistics: (1) Average citation of exceptional papers. (2) Average citation all papers. (3) Average citation of low cited papers. (4) Hirsch index. We can have two more statistics: (5) Percentage of exceptionally high cited papers. (6) Percentage of low cited papers. Let us first have (7) Average of (2) & (4). (8) Average of (1) & (3). (9) Sum of (5) & (6). (10) (7)x100/(100-(9)). (11) (8) + (10). This to my mind will be a good statistic for judgment. I find Michael Nielsen’s ‘Why H-Index is of little use’ interesting. No index can contain all the information needed of a situation. Any index is only indicative and is a device only for a sound judgment. For making something like a conclusive judgment many indices should be simultaneously considered. Say for example one can have four numbers of statistics: (1) Average citation of exceptional papers. (2) Average citation all papers. (3) Average citation of low cited papers. (4) Hirsch index. We can have two more statistics: (5) Percentage of exceptionally high cited papers. (6) Percentage of low cited papers. Let us first have (7) Average of (2) & (4). (8) Average of (1) & (3). (9) Sum of (5) & (6). (10) (7)x100/(100-(9)). (11) (8) + (10). This to my mind will be a good statistic for judgment.

]]> By: Isabel Lugo http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-12900 Isabel Lugo Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:59:42 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-12900 Starting from h = sqrt(T)/2, one can derive an interesting consequence. Namely, I believe it's been shown empirically that the h index grows linearly with time. (For example, although this isn't really strong evidence, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_number" rel="nofollow">wikipedia says</a> that "In physics, a moderately productive scientist should have an h equal to the number of years of service".) This means that T, the total number of citations, should grow <i>quadratically</i> with time. So the time derivative of T, dT/dt, grows linearly. That is, the rate at which a scientist is cited is proportional to the amount of time they've been doing science. Is this reasonable? I'm not sure. Starting from h = sqrt(T)/2, one can derive an interesting consequence. Namely, I believe it’s been shown empirically that the h index grows linearly with time. (For example, although this isn’t really strong evidence, wikipedia says that “In physics, a moderately productive scientist should have an h equal to the number of years of service”.)

This means that T, the total number of citations, should grow quadratically with time. So the time derivative of T, dT/dt, grows linearly. That is, the rate at which a scientist is cited is proportional to the amount of time they’ve been doing science.

Is this reasonable? I’m not sure.

]]> By: Michael Nielsen » Why the h-index is little use http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-12647 Michael Nielsen » Why the h-index is little use Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:41:00 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-12647 [...] surprised how popular the h-index is becoming. This post is a reiteration of something I noted in an earlier post: it appears that for most scientists, the h-index can be computed to a good approximation from the [...] [...] surprised how popular the h-index is becoming. This post is a reiteration of something I noted in an earlier post: it appears that for most scientists, the h-index can be computed to a good approximation from the [...]

]]>