Archive for August 4, 2011
H-indices and how academic publishing has changed: Feynman and Einstein just aren’t that impressive anymore
There’s an interesting list of the computer scientists with the top “h-indices.” An h-index is a metric for the productivity of researchers and impact of publications. There are 500 computer scientists with an h-index of 40 or higher on that list. I know that h-indices get discussed in every promotion and tenure meeting I’ve been at for several years now.
Google now has a “Citations” feature where famous scientists’ h-indices and citation records are published. Richard Feynman has an h-index of 37. Albert Einstein has an h-index of 44. 37 might not earn Feynman a full professor status at some academic departments today. I know lots of those folks with h-indices over 44, but I don’t think any of them are household names more than Einstein’s.
Maybe this gap between measurable-impact and perceived-impact says something about just how valuable the h-index is for measuring impact and productivity. The h-index assumes that impact can be measured in terms of (a) publishing a lot and (b) having lots of people reference what you publish. It’s inherently incestuous — academic impact matters in terms of academic citations. A best-selling book that millions buy and thousands talk about does not count towards an h-index — it only matters in terms of who cites it. Blogs and other new media, which may have impact (on thinking, on actions), are not included in h-index calculations.
Or maybe this observation says something about how academic publishing has changed. Feynman and Einstein have had a great impact, and neither (a) needed to publish as much as today’s scientists to achieve their impact nor (b) were expected to publish as much as faculty today. Maybe this h-index gap is more reflective of our desire to quantify everything, than of our desire to measure real and significant impact.
Recent Comments