Nature Medicine | Spoonful of Medicine

Mine is larger than yours

A dear friend of mine sent me a link to this page, which shows the “h indices” of what the author of the page refers to the “best Spanish scientists”. The page is a bit difficult to navigate if you don’t know Spanish, but it doesn’t matter; I’m sure that if you have the time and inclination, you will find a similar page in your language and for the nationality of your choice.

The reason for bringing it up has to do with the raison d’etre of the h index — to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. The h index was originally introduced by J. E. Hirsch, from UCSD, in this paper and, briefly, his proposal was that a scientist has an index of h if h of his/her papers have at least h citations each, and the rest of his/her papers have no more than h citations each. In his paper, Hirsch argues why this measure is preferable to other criteria, and ends up suggesting that “this index may provide a useful yardstick to compare different individuals competing for the same resource when an important evaluation criterion is scientific achievement, in an unbiased way”.

I don’t know how many people have bought into this index, but needless to say, as any of these metrics, it has limitations. For example, if you’re the technician of a lab that has a bunch of highly cited papers and you’re always including in the middle of a long list of authors, does your massive h index turn you into one of those “best scientists”?

In any case, its limitations notwithstanding, I thought I would share it in order to stimulate our unsatiable appetite for ways to measure the quality of what we publish. Ready to go check if yours is larger than your neighbor’s?

Image by Brett L.

Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Sergio Stagnaro MD said:

    In my opinion, speaking of the BEST scientists sounds as ridiculous as the fact that ther’s a book of GREATEST geniouses od the 21st century. In spite of I am among these…I ask myself if there are also geniouses less great! On the other hand, one author has been cited largely among other 20 co-workers, while the scientist who discovered non-local realm in biological systems, using a clinical method, he described, has not been cited never. Who is the best? More important is the GOOD for mankind, rather than the number of citations, obviously, so I think!