SUMMARY:
The H-index is the
most widely used metric
in academia for measuring
the productivity and impact
of researchers.
But ...
The H-index encourages
researchers to focus
on popular research
subjects, and to agree
with the consensus.
The index discourages
Innovative thinking
that deviates from the
mainstream consensus.
But ...
The history of progress
in science is filled with
individuals, or small teams,
refuting consensus beliefs.
That's why
the H-index
is anti-science.
DETAILS:
Jorge Hirsch
proposed the H-index
as an objective measure
of scientific achievement
in 2005, specifically for
theoretical physics.
Hirsch was a physicist
at the University of
California, San Diego.
The metric looks at
the number of papers
a researcher publishes,
and how many
citations they
receive.
It is a popular tool
for assessing job
candidates and
grant applicants.
It is also one of the
most contentious topics
scientists discuss,
as Hirsch wrote in the
Physics and Society
newsletter in January.
“About half
the scientific
community loves
the H-index
and half hates it,”
wrote Hirsch.
“The H-index
of the scientist itself
is a great predictor
of whether s/he
belongs to the first
or the second group.”
Hirsch still believes
that the H-index
is a decent measure,
but he knows it can
“fail spectacularly and
have severe unintended
negative consequences.”
It can deter researchers
from innovative thinking.
A student working
under a professor
with a high H-index,
for example, may be
reluctant to question
concepts they are
being taught.
The quest for a high
H-index encourages
researchers to choose
‘hot’ research topics,
that are more likely
to gain attention.
On such a subject,
such as climate change,
they will be tempted
to publish one paper
after another, to boost
their H-index.
“It’s a little too sensitive
to what’s popular and
fashionable in science,”
says Hirsch.
Hirsch points out that
the metric doesn’t pick up
on research that deviates
from the mainstream
consensus.
“If you write a paper
that that’s not
generally accepted,
it’s an uphill battle
to get people
to consider it,”
says Hirsch.
“But just because
something
is accepted,
it doesn’t mean
that it’s right.”
Hirsch writes
that his own papers,
on the theory of
hole superconductivity
are “far more important
than any other work
I have done that has
a lot of citations”,
but their significance
cannot by gauged
by using his
H-index alone.
“If we believe
citations and
H-indices,
by all counts
my contributions
to the
understanding of
superconductivity
are insignificant,”
writes Hirsch.
“Therefore,
I have to conclude,
much to my regret,
that the H-index
fails in this case.”
“If you make decisions
just based on someone’s
H-index, you can end up
hiring the wrong person,
or denying a grant
to someone who is
much more likely to do
something important.
It has to be used carefully.”,
said Hirsch.