A physicist in the US has proposed a new way of quantifying the scientific output of individual scientists. Jorge Hirsch of UC San Diego says that the

Nobel laureates in Physics vs. their h-Index (Courtesy: PhysicsWeb) While the number of papers published by a scientist provides a measure of their productivity, it says nothing about the quality of their work. The number of citations received by a scientist is a better indicator of quality, but co-authoring a handful of articles that are cited widely could

Hirsch, who has a h-index of 49, says that a "successful scientist" will have an index of 20 after 20 years; an "outstanding scientist" will have an index of 40 after 20 years; and a "truly unique individual" will have an index of 60 after 20 years. Moreover, he goes on to propose that a researcher should be promoted to associate professor when they achieve a h-index of around 12, and to full professor when they reach a h about of 18:-?. I am not too sure about that, though:):).

*h-index*- which is derived from the number of times that papers by the scientist are cited - gives an estimate of the*importance, significance and broad impact of a scientist's cumulative contributions.*According to Hirsch the h-index*should provide a useful yardstick to compare different individuals" when recruiting new staff, deciding promotions and awarding grants.*Nobel laureates in Physics vs. their h-Index (Courtesy: PhysicsWeb)

*inflate*the reputation of a scientist. The new technique is supposed to take care of these issues.Hirsch, who has a h-index of 49, says that a "successful scientist" will have an index of 20 after 20 years; an "outstanding scientist" will have an index of 40 after 20 years; and a "truly unique individual" will have an index of 60 after 20 years. Moreover, he goes on to propose that a researcher should be promoted to associate professor when they achieve a h-index of around 12, and to full professor when they reach a h about of 18:-?. I am not too sure about that, though:):).

###
Measuring Productivity
document.write("("); document.write("Hide"); document.write(")");
document.write("("); document.write("Show"); document.write(")");

writeItemStatistics('1124258391784246834', 'Mathematics', true);
savePostInfo("Measuring Productivity", "http://scithought.blogspot.com/2005/08/measuring-productivity.html");

*h-index*- which is derived from the number of times that papers by the scientist are cited - gives an estimate of the

*importance, significance and broad impact of a scientist's cumulative contributions.*According to Hirsch the h-index

*should provide a useful yardstick to compare different individuals" when recruiting new staff, deciding promotions and awarding grants.*

Nobel laureates in Physics vs. their h-Index (Courtesy: PhysicsWeb)

*inflate*the reputation of a scientist. The new technique is supposed to take care of these issues.

Hirsch, who has a h-index of 49, says that a "successful scientist" will have an index of 20 after 20 years; an "outstanding scientist" will have an index of 40 after 20 years; and a "truly unique individual" will have an index of 60 after 20 years. Moreover, he goes on to propose that a researcher should be promoted to associate professor when they achieve a h-index of around 12, and to full professor when they reach a h about of 18:-?. I am not too sure about that, though:):).

## 4 Comments:

Although, on the otherside of the coin maybe a standardized system is impossible.

Although, on the otherside of the coin maybe a standardized system is impossible.

Here’s some statistics on h-index recent PhD physicists - reposted from another blog:

Analyzed are 72 PhD’s (for 2002, 2003 and 2004) from Harvard Physics and Applied Physics. Discarded are several high-energy PhDs. Analysis was done using Web of Knowledge which may not include conference proceedings and low-ranked journals, which shouldn’t affect analysis anyways.

Older PhDs (2002) obviously have an advantage over younger (2004) in terms of h-index, which tends to increase over time.

Average number of publications during PhD is 6.0 with average h-index 3.1.

3 out of 72 had h-index higher than 6 - Yaroslav Tserkovnyak (PhD 2003,l Halperin group) with h-index 10 and 25 publications, Jonathan Weinstein (PhD 2002, Doyle) with h-index of 9 and 9 publications and Oleg Shpyrko (PhD 2004, Pershan) with h-index 7 and 14 publications.

22 out of 72 had h-index from 4 to 6, and 47 had h-index 3 or less.

Condensed matter and AMO experimenters seem to do better than others - among 10 people with h-index 6 or higher, only 2 are string theorists )Volovich, Headrick), and one condensed matter theorist (Tserkovnyak) - others are CM experiment (Shpyrko, Topinka, Gordon, Prasad, Wu) or AMO experiment (Weinstein, Zabow).

13 out of 72 PhD’s had 10 or more publications - Yaroslav Tserkovnyak with 25, Meghan Valentine 17, Dan McKinsey 16, Oleg Shpyrko 14, Mark Topinka 14, Margaret Gardel 14, Carlo Mattoni 14, Sergei Dzhosyuk, Venrita Gordon 13, Brian LeRoy 12, Gary Zabow 12, Deiner 11, Fiete 10.

Once again, most (12 out 14) are CM or AMO experiment. They also on average take longer to get PhDs than high energy theorists, for example.

32 people had 3-9 publications and

27 had 3 or less.

Here’s some statistics on h-index recent PhD physicists - reposted from another blog:

Analyzed are 72 PhD’s (for 2002, 2003 and 2004) from Harvard Physics and Applied Physics. Discarded are several high-energy PhDs. Analysis was done using Web of Knowledge which may not include conference proceedings and low-ranked journals, which shouldn’t affect analysis anyways.

Older PhDs (2002) obviously have an advantage over younger (2004) in terms of h-index, which tends to increase over time.

Average number of publications during PhD is 6.0 with average h-index 3.1.

3 out of 72 had h-index higher than 6 - Yaroslav Tserkovnyak (PhD 2003,l Halperin group) with h-index 10 and 25 publications, Jonathan Weinstein (PhD 2002, Doyle) with h-index of 9 and 9 publications and Oleg Shpyrko (PhD 2004, Pershan) with h-index 7 and 14 publications.

22 out of 72 had h-index from 4 to 6, and 47 had h-index 3 or less.

Condensed matter and AMO experimenters seem to do better than others - among 10 people with h-index 6 or higher, only 2 are string theorists )Volovich, Headrick), and one condensed matter theorist (Tserkovnyak) - others are CM experiment (Shpyrko, Topinka, Gordon, Prasad, Wu) or AMO experiment (Weinstein, Zabow).

13 out of 72 PhD’s had 10 or more publications - Yaroslav Tserkovnyak with 25, Meghan Valentine 17, Dan McKinsey 16, Oleg Shpyrko 14, Mark Topinka 14, Margaret Gardel 14, Carlo Mattoni 14, Sergei Dzhosyuk, Venrita Gordon 13, Brian LeRoy 12, Gary Zabow 12, Deiner 11, Fiete 10.

Once again, most (12 out 14) are CM or AMO experiment. They also on average take longer to get PhDs than high energy theorists, for example.

32 people had 3-9 publications and

27 had 3 or less.

Post a Comment