[Closed] Scientists of STW

I've crossed over to the darkside of science* (and I ride a road bike) so I don't publish much.

Interesting concept though h-factor

*industry to non science folks

9

but i've not been in academia for 5 years

As a non-scientist I have a question.

If you write a lot of rubbish that is then cited by lots of other scientists as rubbish, does that score you a high h-factor?

Not sure what it is but somewhere it said that your h-factor is the number of papers you've written. I guess about 12 or 13. I forget.

not the amount only but also the "impact" of the paper

its a load of tosh really

H-factor is number of papers combined with number of citations, for a factor of 2, you need two papers with 2 citations each, for a 3 you need 3 with 3 citations each and so on. 9 sounds pretty good!

If you write a lot of rubbish that is then cited by lots of other scientists as rubbish, does that score you a high h-factor?

Oh yes,

I've just hit 6, according to google scholar

[Flexes]

19

[/Flexes]

5 !

The OH has a score of 5.

I'm an imbecile and no not of these things.

I've been out of academia and publishing for 10 years, but some of my publications have a LOT of citations, so apparently, mine is 67. Is that good?

EDIT: looks closer to 27 after author pruning. Still my top paper has 480 citations.

Does your H-factor go down once your work gets discredited by a bunch of young upstarts with new-fangled ideas?

Whether your h factor score is good or not depends on your field, and how "busy" it is. I think physics and medicine typically produce the highest h factors.

67 sounds pretty impressive though 😯 .

You have 67 papers with 67 citations!!!!!????? 😯

Just checked the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index ]wikipedia article[/url] on this, and it seems that self-citations are not excluded from the h-index. This makes me a 7, due to my relentless self promotion.

H-index is not perfect by any means and is heavily biased towards older researchers (famously Galois' h-index is 2). Field also seems to be very important: I work in a field of engineering where people publish a lot of relatively short papers (15 papers during my PhD while being distinctly mediocre) and have got to a 7 in 4 years, this is pretty much impossible in a field like biology or maths.

67 is really impressive! How long were you at it and what field were you in djaustin?

Is 67 a high h-index? Lol it's pyar massive man! FRS level easy.

19's not bad either

As a rough indication of just how massive an h-index 67 is, have a look at [url= http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~palsberg/h-number.html ]this list[/url] of h-index for people working in computer science.

At least in CS, 67 would make you roughly top 50 in the world!

Had to prune the author list, as there is a particle physicist with my name. Hence the 27. But I was in Infectious Disease Epidemiology for five years and wrote the first paper that linked antibiotic resistance levels to consumption. That one has 480 citations. One on Spread of superbugs has about 280. I haven't published in 10 years.

My mums an 18, 25 years in acedemia (in one institution)!

1

Back in manufacturing industry after a pitiful spell in research. I don't think academia was really my forte.