tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511829372351341419.post4539126274282164211..comments2023-10-22T03:35:00.814-07:00Comments on Wild Plants Post: The H index: how many for how longJMChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06001175696291253716noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511829372351341419.post-89915834394902221272011-10-10T20:26:39.715-07:002011-10-10T20:26:39.715-07:00It looks like all the people who haven't been ...It looks like all the people who haven't been publishing long (say, less than ~15 years) or don't have many publications (less than ~30) have a negative residual. It seems the model doesn't work well for these scientist. I think this supports what Jon is saying. All the scientists above this threshold are very good and productive but even Joe can't necessarily pick out the scientists who are going to make a big impact when they have just 30 publications.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14050833579940759902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511829372351341419.post-55470582597723046732011-10-03T05:07:24.702-07:002011-10-03T05:07:24.702-07:00I agree that time and number of publications are i...I agree that time and number of publications are important and clearly have to be accounted for before comparing people. I still reckon you've delineated the upper limit of the relationship by choosing 'good' researchers. This might actually make it a good way of comparing people - if they fit on that line then they are among the 'elite'. You're probably right on the lack of high publications, low H people - they would have given up before they get there. It would be interesting to see the whole picture. The H index is a fascinating little metric, we don't really use it over here in the UK, but people are starting to get interested in it.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13392477664493589593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511829372351341419.post-27979100061520161312011-09-22T21:09:03.542-07:002011-09-22T21:09:03.542-07:00The h-index was put into use to provide more infor...The h-index was put into use to provide more information than just the number of publications. In most cases, it really doesn't. I'm sure we could find someone who published a paper 40 years ago and doesn't have an h-index of 20, but we're not really trying to compare their productivity. Publishing 100 papers over 20 years but only having an h-index of 10 is really hard to do.JMChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06001175696291253716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1511829372351341419.post-77664185829345746182011-09-20T07:38:33.858-07:002011-09-20T07:38:33.858-07:00I wonder if your results were skewed because you c...I wonder if your results were skewed because you chose the sample? Maybe you've just chosen people who are good scientists - and for good scientists it is time & number of papers that are important? The less good scientists by definition have a lower profile so would be less likely to be chosen by you.<br /><br />I suspect that there are lots of people that have been around for a long time but have a low H-index (I can think of some) and others who have published lots but also have a low H-index (I can think of some of those too). I strongly suspect that your clear results are partially an artefact of your sampling strategy.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13392477664493589593noreply@blogger.com