As in all domains of human activity, economic issues and the increase of people working in scientific research have altered the
way scientific production is evaluated as well as the objectives for performing the evaluation. The h index was introduced in
2005 by J. E. Hirsch as an indicator for the measurement of individual scientific output not only in terms of quantity but also in
terms of quality, and its use has since spread throughout the world. In 2007, Hirsch proposed its adoption as the best way to
predict future scientific achievement and, consequently, as a useful guide for investment in research and for institutions when
hiring members for their scientific staff. Since then, several authors have also been using the Thomson ISI Web of Science
database to develop their proposals for evaluating research output. Here, using a software we have developed, we analyze
more than 100,000 articles and show that a subtle flaw in Web of Science can inflate the results of information collected,
therefore compromising the exactness and, consequently, the effectiveness of Hirsch’s proposal and its variations.
Bibliographic Production
Este trabalho apresenta alguns exemplos para pensar os paradoxos e as contradições observados na ciência em decorrência de uma lógica da produtividade presente atualmente no meio acadêmico. Para isso, faremos um breve recorte que passa desde a premiação em ciência até a produção de artigos científicos dando destaque, por exemplo, ao IgNobel. Para nos ajudar a pensar a questão da produtividade na ciência trazemos algumas provocações elaboradas pelo Filósofo português José Gil. Dentro desse contexto, esse pensador nos apresenta primeiramente a ideia do “homem avaliado” como a figura social do século XXI. Nesse caso, levantamos a hipótese de que...Leia mais
Indexes that account for good representations of an individual's productivity are theme of major importance for the evaluation and comparison among researchers. Recently, a new index was proposed combining productivity with impact such that a researcher with index h has h papers with at least h citations. A drawback of this is the sensitivity to the research field. Here we propose a new index (hI) that accounts for the coauthorship effect. The statistics of h and hI are presented for Brazilian research. We have found a universal curve for different disciplines, allowing a comparison among scientists of different research areas.
In 2005 the h-index is presented to the scientific community as an indicator to assess the scientific performance, from the measurement of productivity and citation of a scientist over his career. In one perspective, the elegance of this indicator is in the simplicity of combining two quantities, number of publications and number of citations in just one variable. But over the years that followed the proposal of this index, several positive and negative aspects were pointed. In this sense, this work has as main objective to present some of the main features of this indicator
Publishing in high-quality international journals is part of today’s scientific zeitgeist and a challenge for researchers from developed and developing countries alike. However, competition to attract an editor’s attention and to convince reviewers
might be tougher for scientists from non- English speaking (NES) countries. As various authors have pointed out, the proficiency of the English language among a country’s scientists could influence its scientific output (Man et al, 2004; Victora & Moreira, 2006; Meneghini & Packer, 2007; Vasconcelos et al, 2007). A recent econometric study, for example, stated that English proficiency is a significant factor for the performance of European science (Bauwens et al, 2007).
The number h of papers with at least h citations has been proposed to evaluate individual's scientific research production. This index is robust in several ways but yet strongly dependent on the research field. We propose a complementary index 2 (T )
I a h = h N , with (T ) a N being the total number of authors in the considered h papers. A researcher with index hI has hI papers with at least hI citation if he/she had published alone. We have obtained the rank plots of h and hI for seven German scientific communities. Contrasting to the h-index curve, the hI index present a perfect data collapse into a unique curve allowing comparison among different research areas.
The number h of papers with at least h citations has been proposed to evaluate individuals scientific research production. This index is robust in several ways but yet strongly dependent on the research field. We propose a complementary index 2 (T )
hI = h Na , with (T ) Na being the total number of authors in the considered h papers. A researcher with index hI has hI papers with at least hI citation if he/she had published alone. We have obtained the rank plots of h and hI for four Brazilian scientific communities. In contrast with the h-index, the hI index rank plots collapse into a single curve allowing comparison among different research areas.
Tornar público os resultados de uma pesquisa científica é uma das marcas emblemáticas da chamada ciência moderna. Isso, em geral, é feito por meio de artigos cujo conteúdo deve ser previamente avaliado por pares acadêmicos. Mas como julgar a qualidade e o impacto desses resultados? Esses dois fatores seriam sinônimos? Ao longo do século passado, foram desenvolvidos ou aprimorados recursos que permitem traçar um perfil individual ou coletivo da pesquisa científica. Hoje, a quantidade de informação nos bancos de dados sobre ciência impressiona. Mas ainda permanece a busca por uma forma de julgamento do impacto dos resultados científicos que agrade a todos da comunidade científica mundial. Aqui, discutiremos um dos recursos mais populares neste momento para isso: o índice h.