Comments on: Why the h-index is little use http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/ Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:38:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 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 [...]

]]> By: maria http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/why-the-h-index-is-virtually-no-use/comment-page-1/#comment-8581 maria Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:32:32 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=248#comment-8581 There are more people who disagree---or: refine---the h-index. An overview on alternative indices, as well as the PoP tool to calculate them http://www.harzing.com/resources.htm#/pop.htm. E.g. highly-cited papers count more (g-index), or more recent ones count more (hc-index), or re-calculated for "individual" h-index to level out umpteen-author publications. Comparing them using the same data set can be more interesting. For instance, a researcher with h h that there are few important contributions (versus lots of tiny bits). In any case, they're indications only and people who score high do so by most measures. There are more people who disagree—or: refine—the h-index. An overview on alternative indices, as well as the PoP tool to calculate them http://www.harzing.com/resources.htm#/pop.htm. E.g. highly-cited papers count more (g-index), or more recent ones count more (hc-index), or re-calculated for “individual” h-index to level out umpteen-author publications. Comparing them using the same data set can be more interesting. For instance, a researcher with h h that there are few important contributions (versus lots of tiny bits). In any case, they’re indications only and people who score high do so by most measures.

]]>