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 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)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 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:):).