Had to check my h index recently on Google Scholar for a job application, and found it quite fun to think of it as a (very long) horse race...
Let's imagine my h Index is 26. I have two papers on 26 (the joint favourites, neck and neck) but coming up on the rails is a newcomer, only at 15, but going strong. Then there is the old stager, comfortable at the back of the pack at 18, but a sudden surge - one good review paper bringing it to the attention of the community - could set it alight...the winner, of course, is the first paper to make it 27. Could there be a photo-finish? Could I set odds? Run a sweep and give the prize money to a charity for third world scientists?
I think this is for science nerds, rather than Relaxation, but might be wrong...
Re: h Index steeplechase
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:08 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Does h-index include self-cites?
Could be quite fun to start strategically citing my own less-cited papers to whip my horse along
Mine's only on 2 at the moment, but I haven't first-authored much yet. Something I second-authored as an undergrad is racking up cites though, so I've got potential and I'm hoping to have the first paper from my PhD out this autumn.
Could be quite fun to start strategically citing my own less-cited papers to whip my horse along
Mine's only on 2 at the moment, but I haven't first-authored much yet. Something I second-authored as an undergrad is racking up cites though, so I've got potential and I'm hoping to have the first paper from my PhD out this autumn.
Most sites that calculate an H-index for you (e.g. Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) don't pay any attention to authorship position. Also they generally include self-citations.
So go crazy citing that paper in which you're 23rd author.
Could be quite fun to start strategically citing my own less-cited papers to whip my horse along
Mine's only on 2 at the moment, but I haven't first-authored much yet. Something I second-authored as an undergrad is racking up cites though, so I've got potential and I'm hoping to have the first paper from my PhD out this autumn.
ResearchGate gives two h-indexes, one that includes self-citations and one that excludes them. I've just looked at mine for the first time and I am at 8 on both counts, so either self-citation doesn't contribute much, or I am not very good at it.
Re: h Index steeplechase
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:03 am
by shpalman
Turns out that I have 28 with self-citations or 26 without them, according to ResearchGate. Web of Science also gives me 28. I have two papers with 27 citations, and then another two with 26. (Google Scholar gives me a h-index of 34, which I don't really believe.)
Yes, I have been known to self-cite papers just out of the h-index threshold. But then I have been known to propose measurements or analysis just for the sake of basing a new paper on something old I haven't worked on (or cited) for a while.
For the original associate professor "habilitation" (which I did in the first round that it was introduced, and finally got made a professor just barely before it expired after four six years) there was some kind of modified version of it which was weighted towards newer papers or something (the "contemporary" h-index). Alternatively, there have previously been metrics here based on page-count × impact factor / number of co-authors.
Re: h Index steeplechase
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:44 pm
by sTeamTraen
My GS h-index was 12 on the day I got my PhD, but had been stuck for several months since. However, I expected that "Happiness Pie" would accumulate citations quite rapidly, and "Emodiversity" has done quite well this year, so I'm now at 13 and will soon be at 14. "Questionable Measures" will take a while to get to 15, though, and I'm not publishing much at the moment.
I would like to propose a "First-author h-index". On that basis I would be on 11, and I actually wrote the majority of two of the three papers in the h=14 pile where I'm not listed as first author because reasons.
The other frustrating thing is how many of the citations miss the point entirely. A typical one of my articles might demonstrate, IMHO rather effectively, that Concept X is utter bollocks. But 70% of the citations will be Concept X fandom, with the cite to me being something like "Although the precise details of the mechanism by which Concept X performs its life-saving magic have been questioned (Brown et al., 2017), research continues to find strong associations between Concept X and well-being". Well, yes, because we showed that it's a statistical artifact that is intrinsically correlated .7 with whatever you are measuring, so of course you keep finding it, FFS.
My GS h-index was 12 on the day I got my PhD, but had been stuck for several months since. However, I expected that "Happiness Pie" would accumulate citations quite rapidly, and "Emodiversity" has done quite well this year, so I'm now at 13 and will soon be at 14. "Questionable Measures" will take a while to get to 15, though, and I'm not publishing much at the moment.
I would like to propose a "First-author h-index". On that basis I would be on 11, and I actually wrote the majority of two of the three papers in the h=14 pile where I'm not listed as first author because reasons.
The other frustrating thing is how many of the citations miss the point entirely. A typical one of my articles might demonstrate, IMHO rather effectively, that Concept X is utter bollocks. But 70% of the citations will be Concept X fandom, with the cite to me being something like "Although the precise details of the mechanism by which Concept X performs its life-saving magic have been questioned (Brown et al., 2017), research continues to find strong associations between Concept X and well-being". Well, yes, because we showed that it's a statistical artifact that is intrinsically correlated .7 with whatever you are measuring, so of course you keep finding it, FFS.
At least in your example your paper was cited as showing the right thing, even if it was then ignored! I've got one that has passed into the dead zone where it is cited (by all those people who obviously haven't read it) as showing the exact opposite to what it actually says. Mind you, I also have a paper which is cited as proving that Jesus was born of a virgin. And that contributes to my h Index like all the rest.
Another oddity is the important early paper on growth factors, widely cited as by Trowell, O.A., Chir, B and Willmer, E.N. (1939).
It is unlikely that B. Chir contributed much to the paper.
Spoiler:
It is one of Trowell's qualifications.
Re: h Index steeplechase
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:11 pm
by Aitch
Ah, got it. The 'h' in the thread title stands for humble-brag!
Re: h Index steeplechase
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:41 pm
by bob sterman
I would like to propose a quality-not-quantity (QnQ) index - shamelessly inspired by the fact that my h-index is not that much greater than the total number of papers I've published.
QnQ = h-index / total number of papers published.
So if you take a very prolific chap we discussed on another thread who has published something like 850 papers and has an h-index of 85. His QnQ index is just 0.1
I would like to propose a quality-not-quantity (QnQ) index - shamelessly inspired by the fact that my h-index is not that much greater than the total number of papers I've published.
Less, surely? There's no way an h-index can be more than number of publications.
And citations aren't a measure of quality anyway. I could publish a really trolly paper and get 100 citations calling me a c.nt, which wouldn't necessarily indicate that my work is of a high standard.
I would like to propose a quality-not-quantity (QnQ) index - shamelessly inspired by the fact that my h-index is not that much greater than the total number of papers I've published.
Less, surely? There's no way an h-index can be more than number of publications.
And citations aren't a measure of quality anyway. I could publish a really trolly paper and get 100 citations calling me a c.nt, which wouldn't necessarily indicate that my work is of a high standard.
You can't possibly be suggesting that Nature and Science accept articles just because they're going to attract a lot of attention and not out of their academic merit.
I would like to propose a quality-not-quantity (QnQ) index - shamelessly inspired by the fact that my h-index is not that much greater than the total number of papers I've published.
Less, surely? There's no way an h-index can be more than number of publications.
And citations aren't a measure of quality anyway. I could publish a really trolly paper and get 100 citations calling me a c.nt, which wouldn't necessarily indicate that my work is of a high standard.
You can't possibly be suggesting that Nature and Science accept articles just because they're going to attract a lot of attention and not out of their academic merit.
Heh They're not the only ones, but probably the worst offenders - especially considering the fact that the methods sections now are usually mostly in online supplements.
I subscribed to Nature again recently, but for the commentary and careers sections - I never read the papers. At least in my field, most Nature/Science papers will have a follow-up article in a proper journal that goes into more detail.
I'd still publish there, though. That's some hefty academic swag.
I would like to propose a quality-not-quantity (QnQ) index - shamelessly inspired by the fact that my h-index is not that much greater than the total number of papers I've published.
Less, surely? There's no way an h-index can be more than number of publications.
Yes of course - typo!!! Sorry.
But by sneaking that that error it spurred you to cite my post.
My GS h-index was 12 on the day I got my PhD, but had been stuck for several months since. However, I expected that "Happiness Pie" would accumulate citations quite rapidly, and "Emodiversity" has done quite well this year, so I'm now at 13 and will soon be at 14. "Questionable Measures" will take a while to get to 15, though, and I'm not publishing much at the moment.
I would like to propose a "First-author h-index". On that basis I would be on 11, and I actually wrote the majority of two of the three papers in the h=14 pile where I'm not listed as first author because reasons.
The other frustrating thing is how many of the citations miss the point entirely. A typical one of my articles might demonstrate, IMHO rather effectively, that Concept X is utter bollocks. But 70% of the citations will be Concept X fandom, with the cite to me being something like "Although the precise details of the mechanism by which Concept X performs its life-saving magic have been questioned (Brown et al., 2017), research continues to find strong associations between Concept X and well-being". Well, yes, because we showed that it's a statistical artifact that is intrinsically correlated .7 with whatever you are measuring, so of course you keep finding it, FFS.
Been a bit out of the loop, so hadn't realised you finished the PhD - congrats!
My gs index is 18, though it bounced down to 17 just before I applied for promotion, the bastard. Back to 18 a few weeks after... (I got the promotion anyway. Am I doing the humblebragging right?).
